Preamble

The house met at a quarter before three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. Speaker made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Morgan Jones, Esquire, late Member for the County of Glamorgan (Caerphilly Division), and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Saint Nicholas Millbrook (Southampton) Church (Sale) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Gosport Corporation Bill [Lords],

King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association Bill [Lords],

Oswestry Corporation Bill [Lords],

Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords],

Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY (MECHANISATION).

Wing-Commander James: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent experience in the Middle East and in certain foreign countries, he will call to the attention of the Government of India the extravagance and loss of efficiency that ensues from mechanising too large a part of a mobile force, and point out to them the need for retaining an adequate proportion of cavalry in the Indian Army?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The experience gained in the Middle East and foreign

countries has been taken into consideration by the Government of India in formulating their policy concerning mechanisation.

Wing-Commander James: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the Government of India will not have available the considerable forces of mounted yeomanry on whom the War Office are, apparently, relying to make good the deficiency that they have created?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I will certainly take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

COMMUNAL RIOTS (CASUALTIES).

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of persons killed and/or injured, respectively, in communal riots in the various provinces of British India during the 12 months ended the last convenient date?

Lieut.-Colone Muirhead: Detailed figures could only be obtained by inquiry from the Provincial Governments, and my Noble Friend is not aware of any present circumstance that would justify him in addressing to those Governments a general inquiry of this kind on a matter of law and order for which they are responsible under the Government of India Act. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on 17th June, 1937.

Mr. Day: Has any figure been supplied of the number of British Europeans?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think we have those figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister what was the subject of discussion between the British Ambassadors to China and Japan in their recent meeting at Shanghai; and what was the object of the subsequent visit of the Ambassador to China to Marshal Chiang Kai Chek at Chungking?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Ambasador at Tokyo made his recent trip to Shanghai with the primary object of taking a short period of local leave. During the few days that he spent


there he took the opportunity to compare notes on a number of questions of common interest with His Majesty's Ambassador to China. The latter is at present paying one of his regular routine visits to the headquarters of the Government to which he is accredited, and no special significance need be attached to this.

Mr. Gallacher: Are not the Government prepared to make an open declaration in support of the heroic Chinese in their fight against the Japanese invasion?

Mr. Butler: I think that the general atitude of His Majesty's Government is well known.

Mr. Thorne: Does the Ambassador make any report as to the way in which the Chinese are pushing back the Japanese?

Mr. Butler: We have received reports from our Ambassador—

Mr. Speaker: rose —

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have been informed by King Zog of the terms proposed to him by the Italian Government for a revised agreement and the rejection of which led to the Italian invasion of Albania?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing which I can add to the passage on this point in the Prime Minister's statement of 13th April, from which it will be seen that a representative of King Zog gave to His Majesty's Minister orally certain information about the terms proposed by the Italian Government.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" that the British Government propose to recognise what has happened in Albania?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have not seen any such report.

Mr. Benn: To whom is it intended to accredit the new Ambassador? To the so-called King of Albania?

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information regarding the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's

Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say what progress has been made in the effort to bring Russia into defensive co-operation with Great Britain and France, and to remove her fears of being involved in an unsupported conflict on her western front?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the recent negotiations with the Turkish Government with a view to securing closer co-operation between the two countries?

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to give details about the progress of negotiations with the Turkish Republic concerning the collective defence system?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are maintaining close touch with other Governments, including those of Turkey and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but I am not yet in a position to add anything to previous statements.

Mr. Dalton: In view of the fact that six weeks have passed since the occupation of Prague, are not His Majesty's Government vigorously pressing forward the negotiations with Moscow with regard to the conclusion of a pact of mutual aid?

The Prime Minister: I have said that we are maintaining close contact.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we likely to have a report on the negotiations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before the German Chancellor makes his reply to President Roosevelt?

The Prime Minister: I could not say.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not extremely desirable that we should make our position-clear by saying what has happened in this negotiation, in order to influence the German Chancellor?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is desirable to make a premature statement on a negotiation which is still in progress.

Mr. Shinwell: While we have no desire for premature statements, is it not desirable to have some indication of what is happening?

The Prime Minister: I have given some indication.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that His Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to bring about this arrangement with Russia at the earliest possible moment?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "this arrangement."

Mr. Leach: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether steps have been taken to remove the apprehension of the Russian Government of being left in the lurch if plunged into a conflict on the western border?

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made to the Italian Government about the retention in Spain of large forces after the cessation of hostilities?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government trust that no such representations will be necessary.

Sir P. Harris: Is there not a possibility of the event being postponed beyond 15th May, and would that be considered a breach?

The Prime Minister: The situation is being very closely watched.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister to what extent Spanish troops have been concentrated in the vicinity of Gibraltar; and whether any explanation of such concentration has been received from the Spanish Government?

Mr. Butler: According to our information, the recent movements of Spanish troops in southern Spain are a natural consequence of the measures of demobilisation which are being taken by the Spanish Government. His Majesty's Government have neither asked for, nor received, any explanation from the Spanish Government on the subject.

Mr. Henderson: Have not His Majesty's Government in recent days sent reinforcements to Gibraltar, and are they satisfied

that there are sufficient defence forces there now to ensure its defence?

Mr. Butler: I could not answer for the Defence Departments, but I am always satisfied with the precautions taken by His Majesty's Government.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that demobilisation of troops from Morocco makes it necessary for them to proceed to the South of Spain; have there not always been garrisons in that part of Spain, and is it not a fact that troops returning to Morocco must go to that part of Spain?

Mr. Butler: I said in my original reply that our information goes to show that the recent movements of these troops are a natural consequence of measures of demobilisation.

Sir P. Harris: Then why is it necessary for His Majesty's Government to send reinforcements to this place if there is no significance in this concentration of troops in Spain?

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Prime Minister whether he has further information regarding the forcible detention of a British merchant vessel and its crew in Palma; whether any assurances have now been received from General Franco regarding the payment of compensation to British shipowners and to the dependants of British seamen who were killed when engaged, legally and in accordance with the Pact of Non-intervention, in the trans port of food and commodities to and from Spanish ports; and whether he is pressing for immediate redress and fulfilment of the pledges regarding these and other matters given by General Franco and accepted by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether General Franco's administration has been asked by the British Government to pay compensation for the loss of British lives and property for which his actions during the Spanish conflict were responsible?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador at San Sebastian was again instructed on 21st April to press for the release of the steamship "Stangate" As I informed the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) on 6th February, the Spanish Government have never denied their liability to pay compensation in cases of deliberate attack. Arrangements are


now being made for the examination and presentation of claims.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what kind of tribunal is to be set up to determine the validity of these claims?

Mr. Butler: There was a proposal, as the hon. Member will be aware, that a special tribunal should be set up to consider deliberate attacks on British shipping, but the shipowners did not finally like the suggestion, and it was therefore not proceeded with. Apart from that particular suggestion, I presume that the claims will be dealt with by a tribunal after the cessation of hostilities, in accordance with the usual precedent.

Mr. Grenfell: What is to happen to these people, who are still detained as prisoners by General Franco—sailors carrying on their legal business, whose ships have been detained by General Franco without any explanation being given? Are the Government satisfied that this should continue with impunity?

Mr. Butler: I have not said that we are satisfied. What I said was that in the case of the particular ship with which we are dealing we have pressed for its release, and will continue to press for it.

Mr. Grenfell: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will do more than send polite notes to General Franco, but will take immediate steps to see that these men are released? They are fellow-countrymen of ours who are held there prisoners—not prisoners of war; will not the Government demand their release?

Mr. Butler: I have already indicated that the Government have taken the immediate steps that the hon. Member desires.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are the Government making any proposals for the establishment of any tribunal of the kind of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke?

Mr. Butler: The kind of tribunal to which I have referred was evolved as the result of negotiations between the then Burgos authorities and His Majesty's Government, and the negotiations reached an advanced stage.

Mr. Grenfell: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and to the fact that the Prime Minister does not assist the right hon.

Gentleman in this matter, I shall call attention to it at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to submit the Draft Convention of the League of Nations, relating to the pollution of the sea by oil, to Governments of other countries; which Governments have agreed to Article 2 of the Draft Convention which agrees to the establishment of zones in which the discharge of oil is not permitted; and has any agreement been arrived at between His Majesty's Government and the Government of France, and/or other countries, for arranging a zone up to the median line between the two countries?

Mr. Butler: As the reply is of considerable length, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Which Governments have not replied to the questions sent to them?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will find that that is fully indicated in my answer.

Following is the reply:

The Draft Convention was submitted to the Governments concerned by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations in a letter dated 27th November, 1935. As stated in the reply given by my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) to the hon. Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson) on 4th March, 1936, the object of Article 2 of the Draft is not to establish zones within which the discharge of oil is permitted, but to establish zones within which it is prohibited. The following Governments have informed the Secretary-General of the League that they accept the principle of Article 2 of the Draft Convention, or that they are prepared to participate in an international conference on the basis of the Draft Convention:—South Africa, United States of America, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, United Kingdom, Denmark, Danzig, Eire, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iraq, Iceland, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Re-


publics. The Draft Convention provides that where the coasts of high contracting parties are less than 100 miles apart, a zone up to the median line, in which the discharge of oil is prohibited, may be established without agreement. Agreement is only required where part of a proposed zone lies beyond the median line and within 50 miles of the shore of another high contracting party. No agreements of the kind contemplated under Article 2 of the Draft Convention have been made, and it would be premature to enter on negotiations for the conclusion of such agreements before the conclusion of the Convention itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER ZONE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister to what extent His Majesty's Government are interested in the maintenance of the status quo in the International Zone at Tangier, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government were parties to the Algeciras Conference of 1906?

Mr. Butler: The United Kingdom is a party to the Algeciras Act of 1906 and to the Paris Convention of 18th December, 1923, as modified by the subsequent Protocol of 25th July, 1928, organising the Statute of the Tangier Zone. His Majesty's Government consider the maintenance of the present regime of the Tangier Zone as a matter of great importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he now contemplates taking any steps for the resumption of diplomatic relations with Mexico?

Mr. Butler: Although preliminary conversations have recently taken place between the Mexican Government and a representative of the expropriated oil companies, there have as yet been no such developments in the situation as would justify His Majesty's Government taking steps for the resumption of diplomatic relations with Mexico.

Mr. Strauss: Are the Government waiting for the oil interests to be satisfied before resuming diplomatic relations?

Mr. Butler: I should say, rather, that we are waiting for a definite indication on

the part of the Mexican Government that they desire to settle the oil question.

Mr. Benn: Have the Government observed that their policy has resulted hitherto in large supplies of oil going to Italy and Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MINISTER'S VISITS, FOREIGN CAPITALS.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, in what respects the system by which British trade is cultivated in Scandinavia and Northern Europe fails to obtain the success to which British trade is entitled; and will he issue a White Paper with recommendations, based upon his observations during his recent mission, by which British commercial efforts can be made more effective?

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he found that there are openings in Finland for increasing the sale of British productions generally, and for engineering goods in particular; and whether he recommends that Anglo-Finnish trade should be developed by correspondence or by British representatives visiting at intervals or by the establishment of permanent residential British selling agencies in Finland?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The purpose of my visit to certain foreign countries was to secure an improvement in our trade relations with those countries, and the results were explained to the House in the answer given by the Prime Minister on 6th April to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). My discussions were for the most part with Governments, and the purpose of my visit was not to conduct a detailed market investigation, either generally or in regard to individual industries. There is, therefore, no occasion for the issue of a White Paper, but I may say that I am convinced that there are good openings for increased United Kingdom exports in those countries. I hope that the mission of industrialists from Finland now in this country, and the similar mission from Sweden which, it has been agreed, shall visit this country shortly, will result in improved knowledge of the requirements of those markets on the one side, and greater appreciation of United


Kingdom capacity to supply on the other. While not minimising the value of other methods, I should like once again to emphasise the importance of personal visits to these markets, not merely by representatives but by responsible executives of British firms.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the negotiations with the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Polish Government to be continued in this country; and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman say when they will be proceeded with?

Mr. Hudson: The negotiations as far as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are concerned will be inaugurated in this country, I hope, fairly shortly. With regard to the negotiations with Poland, I was, as the hon. Member knows, successful in clearing up the difficulties, and no further negotiations are in contemplation at the moment.

EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEE DEPARTMENT.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will consider opening a branch office of the Exports Guarantee Department in Newcastle-on-Tyne?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the Department's policy of developing their provincial organisation, I have decided to open a branch office in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and I hope the necessary arrangements will be completed within the next few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

OATS, BARLEY AND SHEEP.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce the proposals of the Government with regard to oats and barley?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 23rd February last, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) on 30th March, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boothby: Does the Minister realise that, owing to the delay in announcing

the proposals of the Government, a great deal of land in Scotland which might otherwise have been put under oats or barley is now being left fallow; and can he give any indication as to when he will be in a position to announce the Government's policy with regard to cereals?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot say more than that it will be at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. T. Williams: Is not the Minister aware that, the longer the delay, the greater will be the damage to agriculture?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot see that there will be any damage to agriculture, because it has been already announced that additional assistance will be given.

Mr. Boothby: What is the cause of the delay?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: My hon. Friend will realise that there is always a time lag between the birth of an idea and the birth of a Parliamentary Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the apprehension caused to barley growers and sheep producers by the delay in implementing the promise of help to producers of these commodities; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the elaboration of proposals for the assistance of producers of barley and sheep is proceeding with all possible despatch, but, as he no doubt appreciates, problems of some complexity arise in regard to both commodities. An announcement will be made as soon as practicable.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the farmers are short of ready cash for carrying on the present crop; and can he do anything to hurry up payments on account, so that a certain amount of land will be utilised?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am afraid we cannot pay anything more on account than under the present Agricultural Acts.

Mr. W. Roberts: Can the Minister say that the interests of the sheep producers will not be overlooked as a result of the pressure that is being exercised by the barley growers?

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has noted the great falling off in the number and acreage of cultivated allotments; and whether he is taking steps to arrest this decline, in the national interest and to provide facilities for persons willing to raise additional foodstuffs by means of allotments?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware that in recent years there has been a gradual decline in the number and acreage of cultivated allotments, due mainly to the demand for land for other purposes in urban areas, particularly for housing. The primary responsibility for taking action to meet allotment needs falls on the local authorities, and, although these authorities should be fully cognisant of the importance that the Government attaches to the provision in the national interest of an adequate number of permanent allotments, I caused a circular letter to be sent at the end of last month by my Department to all the urban allotment authorities, urging them to make the fullest use of the ample powers entrusted to them by Parliament for the purpose of providing and maintaining allotments on a permanent basis for residents in their areas. I am sending a copy of this letter to the hon. Member.

Mr. Mathers: What kind of response has been received to that communication; and is it the intention to keep up that pressure?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There has not been time to say exactly what the response is, but the pressure will be continued.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister take steps to compel local authorities who have taken allotment land for housing or other purposes to provide alternative land for allotment purposes?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have no power to do that.

Mr. Fleming: Is the Minister aware that in many cases the difficulty is due to the absence of a tenancy agreement in conformity with the Agricultural Small Holdings Act?

POTATOES.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to provide

the increased quantity of potatoes that would be required in the event of war, he will intimate to the Potato Marketing Board the additional acreage that it is desirable to plant, and give a guarantee that the Government will in any event provide an outlet for the additional crop so produced?

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to increase the production of home-grown food against the eventuality of war, he will fix a guaranteed price for potatoes and thereby encourage farmers to put more land under the one important crop that can still be increased this year?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver) on 30th March, of which I am sending them copies.

Mr. Turton: As the time that remains for planting potatoes is very short, can the Minister give some indication to potato producers as to whether they will be allowed to increase their acreage?

Mr. Loftus: Is the Minister aware that in Suffolk farmers are most anxious to plant immediately, but cannot do so for fear of being fined £1 an acre?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The Situation with regard to that so-called fine is that there were 115,000 acres, or a little over a sixth of the basic acreage, were unused in 1938, and that acreage, therefore, is still available. As regards the other question, I fully appreciate the problem, and have been into it as carefully as possible, but I do not see that at the moment it would be possible to give the indication which my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. T. Williams: Is not the Minister aware that the only possible solution of this problem is that the Government should not only guarantee a price to potato producers, up to a maximum quantity, but should also have their own machinery for distributing the potatoes?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

HOME-GROWN FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy to increase production in time of war?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 20th April to questions asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn).

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the agricultural producers are very anxious to do their part in time of war but do not yet know what part they are expected to play? Could he give some indication to the farmers, as he has already done to the president of the National Farmers' Union, as to what is expected of them?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is impossible to give to each and every individual farmer precise information as to what he will be expected to do in time of war. As the hon. Member will be aware, the plans of the Ministry apply to varying needs and varying types of war. I am afraid it would not be possible to give precise information to meet all needs.

Mr. T. Williams: If the Government are unable to announce their food policy for war-time, may we not expect them to announce a food policy for peacetime?

Mr. John Morgan: Has any decision been taken affecting any crops that might be put in the ground now?

FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to guarantee or to give some access to finance to farmers to enable them to buy raw material for feeding-stuffs for poultry and cattle, wheat and maize; and whether he will bring in legislation to provide for existing mills processing this raw material at a reasonable charge?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not satisfied that the ordinary channels of trade are failing to provide farmers with adequate supplies of feeding-stuffs for cattle and poultry at reasonable prices. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that bakers are to have a subsidy on every additional sack of flour they house on their premises; and why cannot the farmers have a similar subsidy on every additional sack of feeding-stuffs for poultry and cattle

housed on their premises? Does not the whole thing seem to be profoundly unsatisfactory?

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make some statement regarding the progress made in creating improved credit facilities for farmers and home producers?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Agricultural credit is one of the subjects which I have discussed with the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales during our recent talks on policy. I have the situation under review, but I am unable to make any statement at the present time.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be strong and very courageous? Will he realise that the Treasury and Agricultural Mortgage Corporation have delayed this matter for three years, and will he further realise that I gave birth to it three years ago?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I hope the child is still in a very promising state.

PRICE INSURANCE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make some statement regarding the proposal to put into operation a price insurance scheme for primary productive produce by the home producers of this country?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in the negotiations with representatives of the agricultural industry begun three months ago; and when he expects to be ready to announce a stable policy which will ensure adequate production of foodstuffs with remunerative returns to farmers and workers?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Detailed discussions have taken place with representatives of the National Farmers' Unions on the proposals which they had submitted to the Government in regard to price insurance and other aspects of agricultural policy. I have also had discussions with representatives of the landowners and the workers' unions. The Government are now considering the proposals which they will submit to Parliament in the light of these discussions.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give some indication as


to when these proposals are likely to be put before Parliament, because the uncertainty is driving farmers almost to despair?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As soon as possible.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has the stage that has been reached given satisfaction to the farmers and to the workers?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would not like to venture an opinion on that.

Mr. Boothby: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend set a precedent by endeavouring to reduce the period of gestation between the birth of an idea and the fulfilment of legislation in this House?

PIGS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many home-produced pigs were despatched to bacon factories during the years 1937 and 1938; and the numbers contracted for or estimated for the present year?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: During 1937 and the first eleven months of 1938 a contract system was not in operation, and the Pigs Marketing Board is unable to supply any precise information as to the numbers of pigs purchased by curers in those periods. The number of pigs contracted to be delivered to curers under long contracts for the first contract period, which runs from December, 1938, to November, 1939, is 1,479,226.

Mr. Williams: In view of the rapid decline in the number of pigs available for either pork or bacon, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what the Government's policy is—if any—to increase the number of pigs?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The hon. Member may have seen that we have asked Lord Portal to conduct certain inquiries into the whole scheme. Until I get his report I cannot give an answer.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is there any evidence that deliveries are falling behind for the coming year?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will ask county agricultural education committees to

arrange forthwith courses of instruction for women enrolled in the land army?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I informed the hon. Member on 20th April, it has not hitherto been contemplated that courses of training for women enrolled in the Women's Land Army should be arranged generally during peace time. The reason is that the majority of the women who have patriotically offered their services in this capacity in the event of war are, at present, in occupations which will not permit of their attending courses of training except in the evening and in the vicinity of their homes, although some might be willing to give up their annual holiday, usually about 14 days, for the purpose. It will, I think, be generally agreed that effective training in general farm work cannot be carried out in a classroom or in so short a period as a fortnight, and an intensive course of training immediately on the outbreak of war at a farm institute or similar institution or on a farm for a period of at least six weeks for women without previous experience, would prove the most efficient arrangement from every point of view. Arrangements for training where the volunteer is not engaged in other work are, however, now in force or under consideration in many counties, in addition to the arrangements made by the Women's Farm and Garden Association, on the payment by women of their own expenses, and I am giving consideration to the possibility of local education authorities providing further facilities for the training of women volunteers in particular classes of agricultural work during peace time.

Mr. Lipson: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that it is advisable at least to provide these facilities in order to see whether the volunteers are able to take advantage of them, and that even a small amount of training would add to their effectiveness in an emergency; and does he not appreciate the danger that if such training is not provided many of these women who have enrolled will seek some other form of national service?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We are seeing whether we can provide some facilities.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the women's organisations themselves have expressed the most profound disappointment at the Ministry's attitude on this subject?

Sir John Mellon: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what financial arrangements he suggests with regard to those courses of instruction?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir; we are having it worked out.

TRACTOR DRIVERS.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps are being taken to train men and women as tractor-drivers in agriculture to replace those tractor-drivers under 25 years of age who may wish to join His Majesty's Forces?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The matter is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the majority of the 43,000 tractors are being driven by men under the age of 25, who are not in the schedule of reserved occupations? Will he take early steps to ensure that these tractors will be driven in war time by trained persons?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the information recently obtained by the authorities of the United States of America from the results of the census of the distribution of foodstuffs and to obtain comprehensive information in the United Kingdom, he will consider taking the necessary steps to introduce a similar census of distribution in this country?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 28th March.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister now supplement that reply by saying whether the cost of production has generally been reduced since then?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

TELEVISION.

Major Procter: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that since broadcasting was instituted in this country up to the end of last year the British

Broadcasting Corporation received only £21,000,000 out of a total of £36,000,000 produced by the receipts from wireless receiving licences; and whether, in view of the fact that an extension of a television service to the whole country is held up largely as a result of lack of finance, he can now make arrangements for the Corporation to receive the whole of the revenue from wireless licences?

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the scheme of the Radio Manufacturers' Association for the immediate establishment of a television transmitter for the Birmingham area, under which the Association would be prepared to stand part of the loss involved if the scheme were not a financial success; and whether he has been able to accede to this request?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): The total receipts from wireless receiving licences to the end of last year were about £36,000,000. Of this sum the Post Office has retained about £4,000,000 to cover its expenses, the British Broadcasting Company and the British Broadcasting Corporation have been paid about £22,300,000, and the Exchequer has retained about £9,700,000. The percentage of the licence revenue paid to the Corporation has been progressively increased, and under present Arrangements the amount accruing to them to cover all their services represents about 81 per cent, of the total licence receipts, while the Post Office retains 9 per cent, for its expenses and the Exchequer retains about 10 per cent. The question of extending the television service to cover the whole of the country raises numerous problems, both technical and financial. All aspects of the question, including the tentative proposals of the Radio Manufacturers' Association, are being investigated, but no decision has yet been reached.

Major Procter: Can the Postmaster-General give any indication when a decision may be expected from the Government regarding the allocation of money retained by them for the purposes of television?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it that they cannot decide or that they will not decide?

RELAY SERVICE (TELEPHONE CIRCUITS).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in connection


with the new broadcast relay service to be operated by the Post Office, it will be possible for existing wireless receiving sets to be used for the reception of the programmes by connection to the telephone circuits, or whether additional apparatus will be required by subscribers?

Sir W. Womersley: Generally a subscriber to this service would be able to use his existing wireless set. A small amount of additional apparatus would be required for the connection between the telephone circuit and the wireless set; but this would be provided by the Post Office.

Mr. Poole: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any additional charge will be made for that apparatus?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, there will be a charge, but it will include maintenance, and also the provision of the apparatus.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say when it will be possible to announce the details of this new service?

Sir W. Womersley: Very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUTOMATIC TELEGRAPH SYSTEM.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any information concerning the public automatic telegraph system recently established in New York; and whether steps will be taken to establish a similar system in London?

Sir W. Womersley: The telegraph system referred to is not yet available in New York for the general use of the public. An automatic telegraph machine has, however, been installed in an office building in that city to enable the tenants to send telegrams to the main office of a telegraph company. There are also a few machines at renters' offices and at two branch telegraph offices in New York; and machines will, I understand, be installed at the New York World's Fair and at the San Francisco Fair. Further information is being obtained in order to consider whether a similar device could, with advantage, be used in this country.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE SITE, DEVIZES.

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the position of the site selected

for the erection of the new telephone exchange at Devizes; is he aware that two gasometers are in close proximity, also that gas mains would run on three sides of the exchange; and, in view of the danger likely to arise from such conditions, will he reconsider the position with a view to selecting a more suitable site?

Sir W. Womersley: I am looking into this matter and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as my inquiries are completed.

STAMP CANCELLATIONS.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Post master-General whether he will consider extending the use of slogan stamp can cellations and use this form of publicity, as is the custom all over the Empire, to call attention to national needs such as, "Have you got your gas-mask?" "Join the Territorials," "National Service, It's up to you," etc.?

Sir W. Womersley: My right hon. Friend is already considering this matter in consultation with the Departments concerned.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it the case that every Government Department is considering everything and doing nothing?

Sir W. Womersley: That is not the case. At any rate, as far as the Post Office are concerned, we are considering, and acting.

Mr. Leach: Is it not the fact that you have so much on your mind that nothing can be guaranteed?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a special appeal to Members of both Houses of Parliament of military age to join some branch of National Service in order to stimulate recruiting and give encouragement to the services?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is necessary that I should make an appeal as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. Members of both Houses are, I am sure, well able to determine for themselves where their duty lies.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

INFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he has approved of the


appointment of Sir Ernest Fass, the Public Trustee, to be the Director-General of the Ministry of Information to be set up in the event of an emergency; what will be the duties of this office; and what previous experience Sir E. Fass possesses in presenting propaganda in this country and abroad?

The Prime Minister: No appointment has been made to such a post, and the second and third parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

Mr. Banfield: Can the Prime Minister say whether, in the event of an appointment being made, the responsible Press quarters will be consulted? Will their views be obtained?

The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question.

FLAX SUPPLIES.

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the increased need for additional supplies of flax to be grown in this country, he can now state whether the Government are proposing to give financial or other assistance to encourage the growing of this material?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The position in regard to flax is being considered, but at the moment I am unable to make any statement.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the production of flax could be greatly extended if the producers were assured that they would not be faced with a loss? Is he not aware that the time for sowing is rapidly coming to an end?

Mr. Morrison: The principal problem of flax is not one of growing. There is the problem of retting and scutching, which is a very costly and laborious process. The Government are conducting an experiment into a mechanical method of performing this particular process, and on the result of that experiment further steps will depend.

Sir R. Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we can do our own retting and scutching in Ulster?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the proposed Minis-

try of Supply it is proposed that power shall be vested in the Minister to prohibit or restrict the production of manufactured articles which absorb skilled labour and equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of armaments?

Sir P. Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether the responsibility of the Minister of Supply for the acquisition and maintenance of the reserves of essential metals and other raw materials required for Defence will give the Minister any authority to allocate and dispose of such essential materials to meet the requirements of the Admiralty and the Royal Air Force; and whether he will have any power to veto the purchase by contractors to meet the requirements of these two Departments?

The Prime Minister: The Bill for setting up the Ministry of Supply will, I hope, be presented very shortly, and I think the most convenient course would be for hon. Members to await the presentation of the Bill and the opportunity which will then be afforded of discussing these matters.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible to establish an effective Ministry of Supply unless care is taken, subject to negotiations with employers and workpeople, to plan the whole of our industrial production in the light of the present emergency; and can he give some assurance that powers of that kind will be taken?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member should await the presentation of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not desirable, before the whole Bill is prepared and presented to the House, that we should have some assurance that effective measures are to be taken along these lines?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think that it is.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Supply will be a member of the Army Council; and whether he will be subordinate to the Secretary of State for War?

The Prime Minister: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Sir P. Harris: If that is so, how will it be possible to arrange effective cooperation between the Departments and the new Ministry which is to carry out their instructions to deliver the goods?

The Prime Minister: Arrangements will be made to secure that there is a liaison officer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to encourage the recruitment of men in defence of the country, he is now prepared to make a statement that conscription of wealth, if it should be necessary to conscript man power, is the policy of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 18th instant.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a very strong feeling on this matter among many of his own supporters, who are committed to some plan for the conscription of wealth? [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Is he aware that some of his supporters in this House have committed themselves— [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]— and arc we to take it, as the final decision of the Prime Minister, that working people are to be asked to sacrifice their lives and wealthy people are not to sacrifice their wealth?

Sir William Davison: It is a very misleading question. We already have conscription of wealth.

Mr. Edwards: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister has not replied to my question, and is an hon. Member opposite entitled to imply that I am telling an untruth in this House?

Sir W. Davison: It was a most misleading question.

Mr. Edwards: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Frankel: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that his Department has refused to allow the post office situated in Gresham House, Bishopsgate, E.C.2, to co-operate in the air-raid precautions scheme being operated by the Gresham House Air-Raid Precautions Committee, which has the support of all the other tenants of the premises; and whether he will take steps to ensure that post offices, and other

Government tenants, do not obstruct the work of voluntary air-raid precautions committees in this way?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): My Department is always prepared to co-operate in air-raid precautions schemes in joint hirings, provided that it is satisfied with the structural security proposed, but the scheme suggested by the Gresham House Air-Raid Precautions Committee did not fulfil that proviso. A further alternative proposal is being made to the committee.

Mr. Frankel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was not the reply given in the correspondence between his Department and this organisation?

Sir P. Sassoon: We said that we could not co-operate on the scheme of strutting, and we have now put forward an alternative.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has given consideration to a letter sent to him on 18th April by the Edinburgh Trades and Labour Council regarding a contract placed by local air-raid precautions officials for biscuits intended for evacuated children; and whether he will give instructions that in future all such contracts shall be governed by the Fair Wages Clause, and, further, that full tests be required of the quality of the goods to be supplied?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. I have seen the letter of 18th April addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal by the Edinburgh and District Trades Council, and assume that it refers to an arrangement made by the Food (Defence Plans) Department for the supply of biscuits as part of the emergency supplies to be isued to evacuated persons in the event of the evacuation scheme being carried out. The Food (Defence Plans) Department have made arrangements with all biscuit manufacturers in the country who are prepared to come into the scheme, whereby they hold certain quantities of their ordinary commercial brands of biscuits available at all times for purchase, if required, by the Department. Some biscuits were purchased during the crisis of last September, but no purchases have been made subsequently, and no contracts have been placed. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Govern-


ment's appreciation of the action of the biscuit manufacturers who are carrying out this arrangement on a purely voluntary basis.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that these particular officers are to be free from the provisions in regard to the Fair Wages Clause which affects Government Departments generally, and that the firm in question is not allowed to contract with the Corporation of Edinburgh?

Mr. Morrison: In regard to the firm in question no biscuits have in fact been bought from it. The question of the Fair Wages Clause would arise only if a contract were made, and no contract has been made.

Mr. Mathers: Will the quality of the biscuits to be supplied be also considered and carefully examined before any contract is made?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The present scheme provides for holding in readiness biscuits of the ordinary commercial brands which are competitive both as to quantity and price in the ordinary market.

Mr. Poole: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these biscuits are made available at cost price? If not, why the special commendation of the biscuit manufacturers?

Mr. Morrison: The biscuit manufacturers have agreed to hold stocks in excess of their commercial requirements, and to do so voluntarily. The price to be paid for the biscuits will be the lowest price that can be paid.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: In the event of the Department placing contracts with these people, will they insist on the Fair Wages Clause being incorporated in the contract?

Mr. Morrison: That question appears to me at the moment to be hypothetical.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Lord Privy Seal what additional financial guarantees the Government are to give to local authorities in view of the extra cost imposed upon them in the provision of a more adequate staff and additional work they are asked to undertake in Civil Defence?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): Any approved additional expendi-

ture incurred by local authorities as a result of the acceleration of preparations for Civil Defence will rank for Government grant under the terms of the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937.

Mr. Lunn: Is it not as important that the Government should bear the extra cost of this additional service as for the Army, Navy and Air Force?

Sir J. Anderson: It is not a question of additional service. What local authorities have been urged to do is to speed up preparations. Apart from that step, which I hope will be universally approved, no change of policy is involved.

Mr. Lunn: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the circular which he sent out last week, which says they have to provide for extra staff?

Sir J. Anderson: Local authorities have been urged for some time past to provide the necessary staff, and many of them have already done so.

Mr. Lunn: Is not that additional service?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether having regard to the financial arrangements, he is satisfied that the local authorities are, in fact, getting the additional staff they require?

Sir J. Anderson: In a great many cases they have done so, and I hope those who have not done so will do so.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not this a great weakness in the system of A.R.P. and will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the financial arrangement in order to get rid of this weakness?

Sir J. Anderson: The rates of grant provided for are very generous.

Mr. Grenfell: If the rates of grant are very generous, why this delay of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks? Is there any shortage of labour or material?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a different question.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any further arrangements have been made other than those contained in Clause 13 of the Civil Defence Bill to safeguard the lives of those employed in and about the mines situated on the north-east coast reaching from Whitburn to Blackhall taking in a group of 12 collieries?

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the provisions of Part III of the Bill and not only to those of Clause 13. I have no reason to suppose that those provisions are insufficient.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the powers of the mines inspectors are very much limited under Clause 13, and can he say what further steps the Government intend to take to safeguard the out-cast and down-cast shafts in a group of collieries which extend right along the coast, and which endanger the lives of hundreds of men?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that is a matter outside the scope of the Bill, which is concerned with the protection of personnel. The matter can be raised in discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: What about the protection of the personnel if hundreds of men are entombed in consequence of interference with the only means of exit from the mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (TRAINING).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will initiate a new King's Roll of employers who are willing to make up the wages of men going to Territorial camps, and to give these men the same holidays as at present, outside their training; and whether, in any case, he will instruct divisional officers of the Ministry to ascertain what firms are willing so to act, and to give publicity to their names?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I appreciate the motive of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that it is not one which I could support. The King's Roll was instituted for the benefit of disabled ex-service men and any plan which might detract from its value to them would be most undesirable. As regards the second part of the question I understand that the War Office and the Territorial Army Associations, whose concern this is, do give publicity in such cases.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that civil servants who join the Territorial Army are only permitted full pay for one week during the fortnight's annual training, and that the second week is taken from their

normal holiday period; and whether he will consider granting leave for the training period in addition to the normal holiday period?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The position is not quite as represented by the hon. Member. Since March, 1937, civil servants who are members of the Territorial Army and whose normal leave allowance does not exceed three weeks are allowed an additional fortnight's leave on full pay for attendance at camp. It is only those civil servants whose annual leave allowance is four weeks or more who are limited to one week's special leave for attendance at camp. In view of the scale on which civil servants' leave allowances are fixed, I do not think any further concession is called for.

Mr. Culverwell: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the granting of leave for the training period in addition to the normal holiday period is not carried out by the co-operative societies, and will he protest against this unpatriotic action?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the Financial Secretary aware that that statement is quite untrue, and that co-operative societies have been advised to take the opposite course?

Mr. Culverwell: Arising out of the supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to furnish him with evidence to the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the disparity in cost to local authorities in payment of public assistance to old age pensioners, and that in a number of cases it is over 1s. in the £ on the rates, and in one case over 3s., while in others it is below 1d. rate in the £; and what steps he intends to take to remove this unfair burden on the heavily rated local authorities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I am aware that there are considerable variations in the charge falling to be met by local authorities out of rates and the block grants in respect of the cost of out-relief granted to old age pensioners. This


item of expenditure cannot advantageously be considered apart from the cost of public assistance generally, as to which a statement on behalf of the Government was made in this House on 1st February last.

Mr. Tinker: Is the hon. Member not aware that the average cost is 4d. in the £ to some local authorities and six or seven times as much to others? Can he not deal with that matter by making the old age pension higher?

Mr. Bernays: The whole question of the equalisation of public assistance was debated on a Private Member's Motion some months ago, and the House came to an adverse decision in regard to it. In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I cannot add anything to the statement that has been made already.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GIBRALTAR (DOCK WIDENING).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is prepared to take steps to accelerate the completion of the work of widening No. 1 dock at Gibraltar?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): All possible steps have already been taken to secure the earliest completion of the work, which is proceeding day and night.

ENGINEER-OFFICERS.

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are being taken to reduce the shortage of engineer-officers in the Navy?

Colonel Llewellin: The immediate steps now under consideration are alterations to the scheme for University grants, and a scheme for promoting warrant engineers direct to lieutenant (E). Particulars of these will, I hope, be announced shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of local education authorities in Great Britain; how many supply milk to school children; how many supply milk free to such children; and how many supply milk during school holidays?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McEntee: Can the hon. Member answer the last part of the question—whether any steps are being taken to induce the local authorities to do so?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir, we are taking active steps.

Following is the answer:

The number of local education authorities in England and Wales is 315. Liquid milk is available for children attending some or all of the public elementary schools in the areas of 312 authorities; in two of the remaining three authorities dried milk preparations are provided. Two hundred and seventy-five authorities supply free milk to necessitous undernourished children. The latest information regarding provision during school holidays relates to the summer holidays, 1938; in 90 areas some arrangements were made whereby children obtained milk during those holidays. For information regarding Scotland, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EXPLOSION, WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the explosion at Woolwich Arsenal on Wednesday; how many people were injured; and what was the cause of the explosion?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The explosion occurred in connection with ammunition filling. Very little damage was done, but I regret to say that one man received severe burns and is in hospital, though his condition is now reported to be satisfactory. The cause of the explosion is not clear.

ROYAL ENGINEERS.

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of officers of the Royal Engineers are engaged in civil or semi-civil work; and what steps he is taking to increase the


number of officers in the Royal Engineers?

Sir V. Warrender: Seventy-two regular Royal Engineer officers are now employed in civil or semi-civil work, that is, about 7 per cent. of the strength. Pending adjustment of the Royal Engineer establishment consequent upon the transfer to the Royal Artillery of the anti-aircraft and coast defence lights, the shortage is being reduced by the appointment of officers to temporary commissions for five years.

NEW BUILDINGS AND EXTENSIONS, SCOTLAND (BRICKS).

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of bricks used in Scotland by his Department during the past 12 months on new buildings and extensions; and how many of these were obtained in Scotland?

Sir V. Warrender: I regret that the required information is not readily available, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Captain Ramsay: Can my hon. Friend look into the matter with a view to seeing that Scottish bricks shall be used in Scotland unless there is very good reason why they should not?

Sir V. Warrender: indicated assent.

Mr. Alexander: Could not we have a regulation to stop Scottish bricks from being used in England?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-GERMAN FELLOWSHIP.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has in his possession a list of members of the body calling itself the Anglo-German Fellowship?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The Anglo German Fellowship is a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. By Section 98 of the Companies Act, 1929, the register of members must be available for inspection to any person at the registered offices of the company during business hours.

Mr. Adams: Will my hon. Friend possess himself of the list and see that any surviving members of the Anglo-German Fellowship are vigilantly encircled?

Sir A. Wilson: On a point of Order. Although I am not myself a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship I desire to inquire whether a Member of this House who is able to obtain a list of the members of the Anglo-German Fellowship is entitled by putting down such a question to use the Privileges of this House in order to cast innuendoes on a body which includes Members of both Houses of Parliament and a large number of men of known repute throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: When I see the question I will tell the hon. Member whether it is in order or not.

Mr. Adams: Further to the point of Order. May I point out that my motive was not to make innuendoes about Members of this House or another place, but to expose the method at the German end, which is notorious.

Mr. Gallacher: From the way in which the point of Order was raised is it not desirable that attention should be drawn to the fact that the Anglo-German Fellowship is associated with the opening of the Brown House in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Simpson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the conclusions of the Government committee set up to inquire into the question of pensions for unmarried women?

Captain Crookshank: The conclusions of this committee are contained in their report, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

STRENGTH.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to increase the strength of police forces in those areas where, owing to additional duties imposed on police officers through air-raid precautions and traffic problems, there is a shortage of personnel, necessitating long hours of work and the sacrifice of the weekly rest-day?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend recently asked all police authorities to review the strength of their forces, bearing in mind particularly the burden of


additional work imposed upon the police by air-raid precautions and other emergency work; as a result of this review, there has been a general increase in police establishments.

Mr. Lipson: Will the grant to local authorities be based on air-raid precaution work or on ordinary police work?

Mr. Peake: That is quite a separate question from the one on the Order Paper.

SMALL FORCES (AMALGAMATION).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, Colonel Brook and Colonel Coke, that some forces are too small to justify the administration and are unable to provide for themselves even simple equipment; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this serious condition of affairs?

Mr. Peake: Under the existing law small forces could only be amalgamated with larger units by agreement between the police authorities concerned. Where deficiencies, either of men or material, are brought to my right hon. Friend's notice by His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, appropriate action is taken with the police authority concerned with a view to the necessary provision being made either by the authority itself or by co-operative arrangements with another force.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the fact that no action has been taken by smaller authorities will legislation be introduced to see that they do amalgamate and stop the waste which is going on?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member knows that there are all sorts of difficulties connected with the question of compulsory amalgamation.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not time that the Government faced some of the difficulties and did something?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister for what purpose it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?

The Prime Minister: We hope to make good progress in Committee with the Civil Defence Bill, but it is not proposed to ask the House to sit very late.

Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister say when he will be able to make a further statement on the international situation, including a statement as to the reasons for Sir Nevile Henderson's return to Berlin?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the answer depends on the progress of the various conversations which are taking place between His Majesty's Government and other Governments. As soon as there is anything to report to the House, I shall be glad to give all the information I possibly can. With regard to Sir Nevile Henderson, the right hon. Gentleman has only given me notice at this moment that he was going to put the question. There is no special significance in the return of Sir Nevile Henderson. He was called back to report, and after he had made his report he was given a short period of leave, which expired after Easter. He is going back in the normal course.

Mr. Benn: May I ask whether on the right hon. Gentleman's statement the Government have decided to recognise what has been done in Albania?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: You have not decided?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask whether we are, therefore, to understand that in sending Sir Nevile Henderson back to Berlin it in any way denotes that His Majesty's Government accept the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia?

The Prime Minister: Certainly not, in any way.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"— [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 96.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, O.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pilkington, R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Procter, Major H. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Purbrick, R.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Assheton, R,
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Barrie, Sir C.C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, A. G. (Exeter)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bernays, R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Remer, J. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Robinson, J. R. (Blaskpool)


Bossom, A. C
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Brass, Sir W.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R,


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Salt, E. W.


Bull, B. B.
Hunter, T.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Burghley, Lord
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sandys, E. D.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon Sir P.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Selley, H. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cary, R. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Leighton, Molar B. E. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Levy, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lewis, O.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lyons, A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Colman, N. C. D
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cooke, J. Q. (Hammersmith, S.)
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Maitland, Sir Adam
Thomas, J. P. L.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Crossley, A. C.
Markham, S. F.
Touche, G. C.


Grander, J. F. E.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Turton, R. H.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De la Bère R.
Medlicott, F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Warrender, Sir V.


Denville, Alfred
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Doland, G. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Duggan, H. J.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Moreing, A. C.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S)


Eastwood, J. F.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Edmendson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wise, A. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, P.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Findlay, Sir E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.



Furness, S. N
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Owen, Major G.
Dugdale


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.









NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, Jennie J. (Dartford)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Sexton, T. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Shinwell, E.


Atlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Silverman, S. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Simpson, F. B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, Ban (Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Batey, J.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stephen, C.


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lamboth, N.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lathan, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Thorns, W.


Collindridge, F.
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Day, H.
Mathers, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ede, J. C.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Frankel, D.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, S. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Dr. Howitt; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Craven-Ellis.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standinging Committee A (added in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Sir Eugene Ramsden and Captain Wallace; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Briscoe and Captain Crookshank.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Wheat (Amendment) Bill): Sir John Train and Mr. Young; and had appointed in substitution: the Attorney-General and the Solicitor General.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of functions of Secretary of State.)

3.59 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, to leave out Subsection (3).
I would like to recall to the Committee that the Lord Privy Seal, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that the purpose of this Clause was to make an honest man of him. I do not think hon. Members have ever had any reason to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was anything but that, but certainly this Bill has managed to make an extremely complicated organism of the right lion. Gentleman. It is because there are so many complicated sub-divisions under this Clause that I have moved the Amendment. Its object is to simplify the control of this very great Civil Defence service, in order that there may be one control, one head—in fact, that there may be in this vital fourth arm, as I ventured to call it the other day, the same unity of command as is essential in the Air Force, the Navy and the Army.
At the present time we have the Lord Privy Seal, we have the Ministry of Health, we have the Ministry of Transport, and there is no united view on these matters, although there should be a united view, and in practice there may be, and I think in actual practice there is, a conflict arising out of a certain amount of disunity which exists. I have no doubt that the Lord Privy Seal hopes to be able to make his view the one which prevails, but in fact that does not always take place. I could give concrete reasons for that, but the Lord Privy Seal will know what I mean when I say that on the vital matter of policy with regard to evacuation the policies of the Lord Privy Seal and of the Ministry of Health have not always followed parallel lines.
The immediate reason for the moving of this Amendment is the very serious conflict in organisation which has arisen in connection with the casualty services. I need not remind the Committee how vital

the easy, co-ordinated and thoroughly efficient functioning of the casualty services will be in time of air attack. If the casualty services do not function easily and swiftly and efficiently they will not only be a cause of very great suffering to those who are wounded and injured, but they will also disorganise the whole of the Defence system in exactly the same way in which, under normal conditions the military system is disorganised if the casualties are not properly dealt with. From every point of view, therefore, it is essential that the casualty organisation should function without any difficulty and with maximum efficiency. There must in action be no hesitations at all as to what is to be done. You cannot have references to three different Ministries as to what is to be done; there must be reference to only one authority. I am not suggesting that in action there would in fact be references to three different Ministries, but you might get hesitations of that character existing, and it is exceedingly important, if there are to be no hesitations, that the different services concerned with casualties should be co-ordinated in their training and in their exercises in peace time, because otherwise they will not be able to function as one body and one machine.
At the present time you have this state of affairs: You have air-raid posts under the Ministry of Health; you have stretcher bearers under the Lord Privy Seal; and you have ambulances under the Ministry of Transport. At best there is a dual if not a treble responsibility. Those who are most intimately concerned with the attempt to work this organisation are those who are most seriously perturbed about it. The matter has been brought to my attention by various people, not only by one group but by numbers of people, and very naturally I have been most seriously perturbed about it myself, as I am a medical man and take a special interest in that side of air-raid precautions. I willingly pay the tribute to the Lord Privy Seal that to some extent the organisation now is much better than it was. [Hon. Members: "Not much."] Hon. Members on this side say "Not much." I am trying to be as polite as possible to the Lord Privy Seal. For instance, one of the bodies which are extremely perturbed about the matter is the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. I am not speaking on their behalf; I have no warrant to do so. But


this body is by no means the only one. I have got into touch recently with a large number of others.
The medical officer of health of one of the largest extra-Metropolitan councils, I am informed on excellent authority, has now reached a stage when he gets so many conflicting instructions that he scratches his head and says: "God help us." I am told that in a very large county area adjacent to London they sum up the situation by saying that they do not know where they stand, which is a serious matter. This particular authority is specially worried about the auxiliary nursing service. Another large council, one of the biggest in the country, is very worried about the difficulty of training certain of its details, and the British Red Cross Society and the Society of St. John representative whom I have consulted give the same sort of general impression. One observer who spends the greater part of his time, certainly the whole of his time apart from his professional duty and takes a very prominent part in the organisation adjacent to London, thought the matter was best summed up by saying that the organisation was "all mucked up"—a vigorous phrase which he was afraid I could not use in Parliament, though there are all kinds of things you can do in Parliament if you think it necessary to do so.
It is particularly urgent to get order into this business now, because the sanction for medical payment has been authorised and the training of first-aid parties and posts and of personnel generally will now be going on at a very much greater speed than in the past. It is therefore essential that the training should be on co-ordinated lines. I want to quote what I have not quoted before, the views of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee as indicated in a letter which I have here. The letter states:
The Standing Joint Committee have always been strongly opposed to the division of responsibility between the Home Office and the Ministry of Health with regard to the casualty services.
I have seen a copy of the minutes of their council containing a Memorandum set before them by the Metropolitan medical officers of health:
in whose minds, I am informed, there is considerable anxiety as to whether the existing

arrangements, under which they receive directions either from the Home Office or the Ministry of Health, or both, are capable of functioning efficiently during a time of war
When you get responsible medical officers of health of the Metropolitan boroughs making that statement there is, at least, a very serious case to be investigated. In order that the House can get the actual views of this organisation I will read an extract from the minutes with regard to this matter. They say—I am summarising the statement:
We still hold the view that the Ministry of Health should be solely responsible for the supervision of the casualty organisation since

(i) Dual control of one service has obvious inherent disabilities with which the Metropolitan local authorities are but too well conversant.
(ii) That important features in the casualty organisation have been omitted.
(iii) That the same premises may often be used both as first-aid posts and by first-aid parties, and that it is undesirable that the consents of two Departments with differing policies should have to be obtained.
(iv) Whatever may be the direction of the two Government Departments in peace-time, in time of war a Metropolitan local authority will regard the personnel of first-aid parties and first-aid posts as interchangeable, and will in emergency pool all their resources.
(v) A mobile first-aid post under the Ministry of Health will often be working with mobile first-aid parties under the Home Office.
(vi) Much of the difficulties experienced have been due to a lack of appreciation on the part of the Home Office of the every-day working of public health administration, whereas the Ministry of Health has been in daily touch with local sanitary authorities for nearly a century"
The Air-Raid Precautions Sub-Committee of the Standing Joint Committee state:
We have received a report from the Advisory Body of Medical Officers of Health stating that, having used their best efforts to carry out the duties imposed upon them in the various instructions received, it is their considered opinion that under the present system of recruitment, training and conditions of service, the organisation of casualty services in such a way as to function efficiently, either in peace or war, is impracticable.
That is a very serious indictment by the medical officers of health of the Metropolitan borough councils. I want to suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that he should present a definite plan with regard to the allocation of the services as between himself and other Ministries. It is impossible not only for local authori-


ties, for local workers in, say, Brixton or Croydon or Northumberland or anywhere else, to know exactly to which Ministry to apply or how exactly the policy of one Department differs from that of another, and it is equally impossible for Members of this House to know to wham they are to address their inquiries. How can we possibly know whether what we regard as a difficulty is due to the Ministry of Health or the Lord Privy Seal or some other Department altogether?
There must be a definite plan setting out how the various functions permitted by this Clause are allocated and are to be co-ordinated together. How are the policies to be co-ordinated together? I suggest that the whole problem of Civil Defence is so new that the Lord Privy Seal ought to be willing to consider something quite new and unusual organisation. Would it be advisable to have some kind of advisory council or committee or board, call it what you like, consisting partly of Members of Parliament, partly of local authorities, and partly of representatives of the different Ministries? The organisation of Civil Defence is, in fact, a greater thing than the organisation of either the Army, Navy or Air Force. It includes the whole of the population of the country, and enters into every aspect of their lives from the time they get up in the morning until they retire to bed, from the time of the air-raid warning until they dive into the deep shelters which we hope to persuade the Government to provide. But there must be some arrangement for co-ordinating policy as a whole. There must also be some arrangement for reviewing the allocation of duties as between the different Ministries, and there must be some plan which will enable the country as a whole and Parliament to know what Minister is responsible for giving the final decision and the final order.
It is essential that there should be unity of command, and and while it may be necessary, in relation to certain aspects of the problem, to divide certain duties between different individuals and different ministries, there should be one final authority from whom orders would issue and by whom decisions would be given. In raising this very large issue, I realise that it is not possible to solve the question offhand by the acceptance or rejection of this Amendment, but I

suggest that it is advisable that some kind of inquiry should be instituted to discover how these duties can be separated and how this very complicated problem can be solved. I would emphasise with all the sincerity and force at my disposal, that in relation to Civil Defence we cannot afford to have hesitation in a time of emergency, as between one Department and another. There must be a chain of command as in the other services from the top to the bottom. The only way is to have a definite plan and a definite order and I submit that an inquiry should be held in order to devise such a plan.

4.16 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) has served a useful purpose by raising this issue at this stage. I take it that the Government's policy is to concentrate, as far as practicable, authority, power and responsibility—particularly responsibility—in relation to Civil Defence, in the hands of the Lord Privy Seal. He is the officer responsible, whom we shall make responsible— [An HON. MEMBER: "And hang if necessary "]—and, if necessary, as an hon. Member says, hang, figuratively of course, and not actually, if he fails in his organisation, and if the tragedy should come about that our Civil Defence proves unequal to the test. Where the word "Minister" is mentioned in the Bill, the Minister referred to is the Lord Privy Seal, and I think it a pity that the draftsman did not use a simple phrase which would make that clearer. It is clear, however, in Part VII of the Bill that all casualty problems and all questions of medical and hospital work are concentrated in the Ministry of Health.

Dr. Guest: Stretcher-bearers are not under the Ministry of Health.

Sir P. Harris: There is one thing which, I think, should be made clear. Is it proposed under Sub-section (3) that the right hon. Gentleman should, on any large scale, delegate his powers to other Ministers? If that is so, we ought to have an early statement to that effect. If the Subsection only means that the right hon. Gentleman, who has no Under-Secretary, has power in case of emergency to call for the assistance of other Departments, obviously there would be no objection to it, but I think that both the local authorities and the country generally want to have it made clear that the Minister


responsible for the efficiency of the organisation of Civil Defence is the Lord Privy Seal, and no one else.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Committee should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) for raising this matter, which is at present causing considerable difficulty to local authorities. I do not speak with my hon. Friend's knowledge of local government arrangements in the Metropolitan boroughs, but I know that this question is causing the county councils of England and Wales the liveliest concern. I think the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) oversimplified this Clause in his statement. As a matter of fact, the original Minister is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Sub-section (1) gives His Majesty power by Order in Council to designate somebody else as Minister for all or any of the functions originally vested in the Secretary of State. We understand that the Lord Privy Seal is to be so designated. Sub-section (1) does not, however, say that he is to take all those functions. He is only to take some of them, or if he does take all of them, he is to re-transfer some of them. That is the kind of arrangement which, I have no doubt, will be very popular inside the offices concerned, because it means that Members of Parliament will be thoroughly confused and will have difficulty in threading their way through the maze of inter-Departmental arrangements in order to find who is really responsible. Under Sub-section (3) the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal may transfer such of his functions as he thinks fit, to various other Government Departments.
Already, there appears to be a pretty wide diffusion of responsibility, and I do not think that my hon. Friend exhausted the instances of divided control. I understand, for instance, that evacuation is partly under the Ministry of Health and partly under the Board of Education, and exactly where the powers of the one Department begin and the powers of the other end, I have not yet been able to discover. Considerable difficulties are arising in that connection. This is such an important matter that it is time there was a Minister for Civil Defence in whose hands should be concentrated

all the powers of a Department, and if there is any other work to be done by other Government Departments they should do that work as his agents. It should be indicated clearly and without any shadow of doubt to local authorities, or public utility undertakers, or individuals desiring to get in touch with the central Government on questions of Civil Defence, that they should address their inquiries and carry on their negotiations with the Minister for Civil Defence. This division of responsibility is all the more confusing since it is constantly changing. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the county council for the West Riding of Yorkshire, a few weeks ago, to issue a document indicating the Ministers responsible for the various functions which come under the heading of Civil Defence. A document was issued, but by the time it was issued alterations had been made, and at the moment it does not accurately correspond with the distribution of these functions, which ought to be centred in a Ministry of Civil Defence. Bad as this is in a time of peace, it will be infinitely worse in time of war if these divisions persist. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take into early consideration the desirability of having a Minister of Civil Defence with an adequate staff, under whom would be placed the various functions and duties now being performed by five or six different Departments of State. Nothing short of that will satisfactorily settle the problem.

4.26 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I was relieved to hear from the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) that he had not moved this Amendment with the object of obstructing the salutary process to which I referred on the Second Reading of the Bill. As he explained, his purpose is to clear up what he conceives to be some confusion which exists with regard to the distribution of the functions connected with Civil Defence. For present purposes, I conceive that it is not necessary for me to do more than establish the necessity for Sub-section (3). When I have dealt with that, I hope to the satisfaction of the Committee, I shall have occasion to say a few words about some of the points of detail which have been


raised. This Sub-section is necessary for two reasons—first, to regularise what has already been done, and, second, to provide for certain contingencies which may arise in the future. I am, at present, primarily responsible for all matters of policy in connection with Civil Defence, but I have made it clear from the beginning that, if the work which has to be done is to be done within a reasonable time, the burden must be spread, while at the same time effective arrangements must be made to ensure that one Minister is in a position to dominate policy.
I have always claimed that that is the position. The Ministry of Health have undertaken various responsibilities in connection with evacuation and casualty services. The Ministry of Transport are responsible for the organisation of transport and for a number of matters of great importance concerned with public utilities. The Ministry of Transport, however—to take up a point which has already been raised—is not responsible for ambulances. The Ministry of Health is responsible for ambulances. The Ministry of Transport is responsible for the general arrangements for organising transport, and, in this connection, their services may be called upon for the purpose of securing vehicles required for use as ambulances, but their responsibility ends there. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for North Islington himself provided a very strong argument for this Sub-section, because, if I understood him aright, he said that what in his opinion was necessary was that the Ministry of Health should be solely responsible for all services connected with the handling of casualties. As matters stand, that would involve the delegation to the Ministry of Health of responsibility for first-aid parties which would in turn involve resort to the very Sub-section which it is proposed to leave out. As I have suggested, the Subsection is clearly necessary.
May I say a few words on the question how far there is risk of confusion in the plan proposed for sharing responsibilities in this matter of Civil Defence? I ask, would confusion not be much greater if I attempted to set up, under my own direct control, a new Department to deal with railways, docks, electricity generating stations and transport when there is a Department already organised, and with all the necessary technical resources at its

disposal, to deal with those technical matters? Similarly, in regard to casualty services, as the hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) pointed out, the Bill, in Part VII, proposes to entrust to the Minister of Health the responsibility for the organisation of hospital services in time of emergency. That is a responsibility which, I suggest, ought to be given to the Minister of Health. He has the experience and the staff at his disposal to enable him to deal effectively with that matter. The responsibility for first-aid posts is proposed to be transferred to the Ministry of Health by way of delegation under this Sub-section.
At the time of the crisis last September, the distribution of responsibility was different. The Minister of Health was undertaking responsibility for hospitals and the Home Office for first-aid parties and first-aid posts, and that experience and the further thought that was given to the matter showed clearly that that was not an effective division of responsibility. Clearly the responsibility for first-aid posts ought to rest where the responsibility for hospitals rests. There has been a demand, it is perfectly true—and I am well aware of it—from certain local authorities, notably from the Metropolitan Boroughs, that the responsibility for first-aid parties should be added to those other two responsibilities which arc both concerned with the treatment of casualties. In this matter you cannot, I suggest, arrive at any ideal solution, but at any rate this much is clear, that any trouble that has arisen is not due to conflict or disagreement between Departments of State, because the Ministry of Health and my Department have been in the most complete agreement throughout in thinking that the proper division of responsibility is the one that we have made, which leaves the responsibility for first-aid parties with the Department under my direct control and transfers the responsibility for first-aid posts to the Ministry of Health.
The reason for that conclusion is that the first-aid parties, or stretcher parties, are street parties. They have to be organised in such a way that they can collaborate effectively with other street parties, with the police, with the demolition parties, and possibly with the fire brigades. The Metropolitan Boroughs raised with me at quite an early stage their


suggestion that first-aid parties should be transferred to the Ministry of Health. I listened to them, I explained the arguments against that proposal, I heard them again at a later stage, when they came in association with the London County Council, and I gave them then the definite decision, which was arrived at after the most careful consideration, that first-aid parties should go with the other street parties and be the direct responsibility of what I will call, for short, the Home Office, while first-aid posts should go to the Ministry of Health. I explained quite clearly the reasons for thinking that that decision should stand. In this matter I suggest that it is very important, if we are to avoid confusion, that there should be some finality. When a decision has been reached, after the fullest consideration, it ought to be adhered to. Nothing but confusion can result if we go on trying, and trying, and trying to get it altered, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying to the Committee that, as a matter of organisation, not only my advisers, but the advisers of the Ministry of Health as well, are clear that the decision that we took two months ago and announced as a final decision should stand.
As regards the suggestion that it is essential that some one person should be clearly responsible to this House and to the public as Minister of Civil Defence, I can only say that I very respectfully agree, and I believe that that is the position. I have seen no evidence at all, since I assumed my present office, of any difficulty in securing agreement on policy and agreement on details in carrying out the policy between the various Departments that are concerned and, as I have suggested, necessarily concerned in this matter. I had thought that we had made clear, in a circular that was issued some little time ago, exactly what the distribution of responsibility is. I do not know that any change has been made since that circular was issued, but, in view of what has been said, I will look at it again and see whether anything further is required. I am most entirely in agreement that you cannot get an organisation to work smoothly and efficiently if the people who have to take part in it do not understand, not only the limits of their own responsibility, but where that responsi-

bility impinges upon the responsibility of others. That is elementary in organisation.
As regards taking people into consultation, I have considered more than once whether any useful purpose would be served by setting up yet another standing consultative body, and I have been inclined to think that there is already a sufficient number of bodies available for consultation, representing the different interests, and that we can do all that is humanly possible by establishing the freest and fullest contact between the Departments and the existing bodies. I am always open to consider any suggestion for improving those contacts and securing more complete collaboration in carrying out these very difficult and very novel functions.
One last word. It has been suggested that this question of divided responsibility, important though it is in time of peace, may constitute a grave obstacle in the way of efficiency in an emergency. That is a point to which I and those associated with me have always been very much alive, but I think you can draw a pretty clear distinction between the business of planning, on which we are engaged now, and the execution of plans when they have been made, and I have no doubt whatever in saying that we shall provide, in the event of war, an executive organisation which will function thoroughly, promptly, with one effective chain of command from this House, and the Government at the centre, down to the smallest unit in the framework of Civil Defence. That was the very purpose of the regional organisation, the development of which I announced in this House last week, and we are, as I think hon. Members know, urging local authorities on their side to provide their part of that necessary chain of command by the appointment of controllers and sub-controllers to work in association with small committees of the local authorities concerned. We have that matter, I can assure the Committee, very much in mind, and I hope that we are in process of providing for it. For the reasons that I have given, I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think hon. Members on this side will not be completely satisfied with the right hon.


Gentleman's reply, and more especially with his tone when he adopted a semi-dictatorial attitude towards the local authorities "When I open my mouth, let no dog bark" When he has said what ought to happen and the Metropolitan boroughs do not like it, they have to desist forthwith from any kind of criticism. No doubt the Minister sees himself as a great Pooh Bah. I have always recognised—and I have spoken on this subject before—the difficulties of a new service of this kind. After all, 20 years have elapsed since the end of the last Great War and have seen more terrifying instruments of destruction invented and produced than anybody realised as being likely when the War ended in 1918. The whole of this problem of Civil Defence has assumed proportions which nobody ever dreamed of, and which certainly were not required, during the last Great War. Therefore, we have to give the right hon. Gentleman every possible sympathy, but he must not become unduly cross with local authorities, or he will find that he has a hornets' nest around his head.
It is undoubtedly true that there is some confusion as to where the Departments' powers begin and end. That, I think, is undeniable, and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying, rather testily, "I have told the Metropolitan boroughs, and therefore what I have said, I have said." The point is that the local authorities, which are an integral part of this scheme, and a very vital part of it, must be persuaded as to the wisdom of the arrangements that are being made, they must realise definitely to what Departments of State their responsibilities lie, and they must be assured that there is no division of responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman said, or he implied, that in the event of an air raid a very large number of Government Departments would be concerned, or at least the local people would be acting for different Government Departments. That may well be. He cited the case of these working parties. He happens to have fallen foul of local authority opinion on this matter. He happens also to have fallen foul of the opinions of the men who will have to do the work, namely, the medical officers of health. That is only one point, and quite clearly it is not much use having a Subsection of a Bill which enables the right hon. Gentleman to farm out his respon-

sibility to any other Minister of State, undefined, unless he is going to make effective arrangements, which shall be clearly stated and which ought to be in the Schedule to this Bill, as regards the relationship between the various Departments of State concerned and the functions that each of them will perform.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was necessary to add another consultative committee. I am not sure that this is a case for a consultative committee, but I am bound to say that I do not like this legislative device of placing the right hon. Gentleman in a position to order about other Ministers of the Crown, and make arrangements with any other Minister of the Crown for the transfer
of any of his functions under the Act of 1937 or this Act
That seems to me to be another illustration of the way in which the Government refuse to face up to the scale, the magnitude, of this tremendous problem of Civil Defence. There is an Air Council, there is a War Council, and there ought to be an equally authoritative A.R.P. Council in this country, because in the event of war the importance of that body, with its functions in dealing with Civil Defence, would be every bit as great as that of the three fighting Services, and indeed, as I have argued in this House before, in the last resort it would be the most important, because of the effect which it could have on the morale of the people.
It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be running this show with one or two charge hands and an office boy or two running about to do odd jobs of work for him, but that he ought to have associated with him, on a Council as important as the Air Council or the War Council, all the Ministers who are involved in this kind of work. I would make this innovation—and it would be an innovation in so far as the Councils of the various Defence Services are concerned—that I would have the local authorities' organisations represented upon that body. There you would get an authoritative body which was fitted to work out all the details of a scheme which could be put into operation rapidly and effectively. It may be true that certain Departments of State are pretty well familiar with the views of the local


authorities, but the views of local authorities on this matter are new; they are themselves grappling with new problems which they never expected to have to face. They have never been consulted on the whole of the issues in the way that they should have been. The right hon. Gentleman has had his life almost badgered out of him by deputations from local authorities, but he has not, except on one occasion in a somewhat pontifical manner, ever really discussed this question with them. There will be no effective Civil Defence scheme dominated from Whitehall. This Committee must accept that as being an undoubted fact. If that be so, an arrangement whereby the Minister fobs off odd jobs to one Minister or another outside his own Department, although I know that he cannot carry the whole burden himself, is not adequate. We ought to have in operation almost continuously consultation between all the Departments concerned with Civil Defence, together with representatives of the local authorities. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not think fit to withdraw Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 for further consideration, and if he holds by that view I am afraid my hon. Friends will have to vote in the Lobby against him.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to express great dissatisfaction at the explanation of the Minister. He informed us that in connection with casualties the Minister of Health has the responsibility for ambulances. He did not add, however, that the Minister of Health only had the responsibility for ambulances if the ambulances were there, and that if the ambulances were not there he had no responsibility. The Minister of Transport then become responsible. We, therefore, have the situation in which, if there are no ambulances, the Minister of Health has to apply to the Minister of Transport for ambulances. The Minister of Transport, however, might be busy on other matters and have no time to attend to the Minister of Health so that the casualties could be moved. That is an impossible situation, and it is clear that there has never been any thought given to this matter.
I would remind the Minister that from the beginning of the discussions on this question this side of the House has had

the responsibility of bringing out the urgent importance of this matter and that the Ministers who were responsible have not had the slightest understanding of the importance of the questions associated with Civil Defence. If we look at the record of the discussions which took place on the first Measure we find talk about gummed paper round windows and pails of sand. It was the silliest nonsense ever talked by Ministers. They did not under stand the problem then, and they do not understand it now. In view of the greater measure of intelligence shown by this side of the House on this question, would we not get much better results if we provided the Ministers to deal with it? Let us take, for instance, the deplorable exhibition given to-day by Ministers when they were considering the question of dispersing the work among the various Ministries—

The Chairman: Not on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I wanted to use it only as an argument in favour of this Amendment. The Sub-section allows for a variety of Ministers having a certain part in this work, but they have one and all demonstrated their capacity for indecision. On every question that comes before them they cannot tell us what will be done and can only say that the matter is being considered. If we put a question to the Lord Privy Seal, and ask him whether this, that or the other thing is to be done to ensure the safety and health of the people, he says, "I have considered this matter, and, as a result of considering it, I am now considering passing it over to the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport for his consideration" That is the situation which we can easily have if we are to judge from the answers we have been receiving from the Ministers of the various Departments. In view of the absence of clarity that exists about the whole situation and the need for the utmost clarity on this new and vital question, and in order to get rid of the feeling which exists all over the country that confusion is becoming worse every day and that there is muddle in every Department, the Minister should agree to the withdrawal of this Sub-section in order that some definite scheme can be drawn up for covering the whole question in such a way that the best results can be achieved.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I hope we may have some reply from the Minister to the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I should like to direct the attention of the Lord Privy Seal to the attitude which many of the local authorities have taken up which, in my opinion, has been an attitude containing more common sense on this matter than that adopted by the Government. When the local authorities were called upon to take part in this new service by setting up air-raid precaution committees, they appointed in most cases, acting with the common sense for which local authorities are famed, the chairman of each committee of the council to form the committee in order to have someone representing each branch of the council's service. As soon as the committees met the difficulties began. Circulars arrived from a number of Government Departments and found their way to the departments of the council concerned. When the A.R.P. committee held their monthly meeting it was found that matters were brought forward by the heads of departments which affected other departments, but the other department knew nothing about them. In the case of my own local authority these complications became so bad that it fell upon the chairman of the A.R.P. committee and me to extricate them. I conferred with the town clerk and arranged with him to call a meeting of the officers of the council before the meeting of their A.R.P. committee in order to go through the agenda and to see in what respect the items on the agenda cut across the various departments. We have made much better progress since we adopted that procedure.
Recently there have been some alterations in regard to the Metropolitan Police area and the result of one of them will be a considerable reduction in the number of air-warden posts in certain districts. Those of us who have had close contact with this question have been informed that the reason is that the Post Office find that the number of telephones which they can instal is much fewer than would be required if the original number of posts had been adhered to. That means that another Department comes into the question, and I am sure that if any point were raised about it with the right hon. Gentleman he would promptly say that

it was a matter for the Post Office. In the Metropolitan area we have spent months getting these posts cited, and now this order comes along. It may not be the real explanation, but it is the one which has been given to me and it seems a good reason. The point is, however, that it means that another Department suddenly comes into the picture.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to consider setting up a kind of council on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend, he might at any rate, arrange for all circulars about A.R.P. to come from his Department instead of from a variety of Departments. Since the right hon. Gentleman took on this tremendous task he has not spared himself and we appreciate the efforts he is making to keep in touch with every Department of it. I wonder whether he will go a little further and attend an A.R.P. committee of a local authority. I shall be pleased to make arrangements for him to do that, I would like him to be in the nature of an invisible man listening to the proceedings, and he would soon learn of the real difficulties and complications which local authorities have to meet. I can only say that the opinions which have been expressed from this side of the House on this matter are those which are almost universally held by the local authorities. Most of them are quite friendly towards A.R.P. and are anxious to help.
Perhaps some of the difficulties arising in Government Departments are also arising with local authorities. The departments of a local authority have their own work to do and they are inclined to think this new work a nuisance coming on top of their ordinary work. The new appeal which has been issued by the right hon. Gentleman in the last few days ought to help considerably because it will become clear to every department of a local authority that they have to give precedence to A.R.P. work. In a local authority the A.R.P. officer is a temporary officer and the medical officer and borough engineer are not inclined to take orders from him. That has been one of the difficulties up till now, but we are getting over it. I wonder whether the fact that the Lord Privy Seal's Department is a new Department leads to the same kind of difficulty of getting other Departments to attach the same amount of importance to it as the right hon. Gentleman does himself. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to


accept the Amendment, I hope that he will at any rate see whether some consultative organisation cannot be set up to clear away these difficulties. It is no good pretending that they do not exist, because they do.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: Coming from a district of a different type, I should like to say that some difficulty has been created among the local authorities there by reason of getting instructions from different Government Departments which may at first sight appear to be contradictory, even if they are not. I recognise that this is a difficult problem, and that, from what the Lord Privy Seal said just now, the setting-up of other Departments to deal with training or health questions would not be desirable; but, on the other hand, there is the point of view that it is confusing for local authorities to receive instructions from different Government Departments. I will give one example of the confusion created by such instructions. This spring the area which I represent received instructions from the Ministry of Health to take a survey of the accommodation available for refugee children, and the local authorities concerned speeded up that work, for which they were largely dependent upon voluntary assistance. A few days later at least one of the authorities received from the Home Office instructions that because their area was regarded as one of special danger they were to double the number of their air-raid wardens and strengthen certain other services.
That sort of thing is bound to create in the public mind a good deal of concern as lo whether the Ministry of Health were right in thinking this was an area suitable for receiving children, or whether the Home Office were right in thinking that the existing emergency staffs were insufficient. Probably there is an explanation, and I am aware that all the areas which were asked to survey available accommodation will not necessarily be expected to receive children, and in the wide area of which I am thinking there may be some districts which are considered dangerous and some which are regarded as safe; but the fact remains that those contrary instructions have created a sense of confusion in that part of the world, and I can reinforce what the hon. Member for North Totten-

ham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) said about air-raid precautions committees being confused by the number of Departments from whom they receive instructions. I wonder whether the suggestion which has been made that all instructions should come from the Lord Privy Seal's Department would not, perhaps, meet the case; and if that were so some more effective coordination should take place in the instructions issued, because the present position is very discouraging, especially to those who are doing this work voluntarily. In view of the fact, to which the Lord Privy Seal referred, that some of the plans have been changed and some subjects transferred from one Department to another, the public may be unreasonably right—I do not say whether it is unreasonable or not—in the views they hold about the apparent contradictions in the orders issued from the various Departments.

5.5 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): In view of the interest which has been displayed in this Amendment, perhaps it would be fitting that I should say a word or two in reply to some of the observations which have been made. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referred to the size and complexity of the problem of Civil Defence, and that must leap to the eye when one considers how wide are the ramifications of the subject and how many facets of the nation's life it touches. One lesson which I would draw, and it is not the one which the right hon. Gentleman drew, is that it would really be impossible, without great delay and expense, to create a completely new Ministry capable of dealing with every aspect of this vast problem. There is another element in the problem which is as striking as its size and complexity, and that is the element of speed.

Mr. Charles Brown: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) did not ask for a new Ministry.

Mr. Morrison: No; but if one were to refuse to allow the Lord Privy Seal to delegate appropriate functions to those organs of the State which already exist to discharge them, I feel certain the only alternative would be to create what would be, in effect, duplicate machinery for producing the same result. That being the


simple question which the Committee have to decide, I venture to think we can proceed to a decision.
There are only one or two other matters which have been mentioned. There would seem to be abroad in the minds of the Committee an impression that there has been no attempt to co-ordinate the activities of the various Departments which are concerned, and suggestions were made that there should be a council or a committee of the Departments concerned, so that all the broad lines of policy involved might be co-ordinated in advance of action. There is a committee of Ministers of the Departments which are touched by this problem, and they decide the broad lines of policy as they go along.

Mr. Greenwood: Would the Government be prepared to publish that as a statement of the existence of an A.R.P. Council, and would they add to that Council representatives of the local authorities, who are equally concerned?

Mr. Morrison: No. I was referring to the reality of the co-ordination which does exist. A committee of Ministers does exist. With regard to further consultation with local authorities, it is also the fact that there are consultative committees which I think, include representatives of most of the associations of local authorities with which the Department is in touch, and my right hon. Friend did say that if experience showed the necessity for some wider body for consultation he would consider that point and see what could be done. In view of the fact that we have here a vast service, with duties which have to be discharged speedily, in view of the immense trouble of duplicating existing machinery, and having regard to the fact that experience will enable co-ordination to become more perfect, I

think this Committee would not be well advised to accept the Amendment which has been moved.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I should like to point out that although a local council has many departments all the business goes through the clerk of the council, and to ask whether it is not possible for that practice to be followed in connection with this work. We realise that in the evacuation of children you cannot ignore the Board of Education, or, in dealing with hospitals and institutions, ignore the Ministry of Health, that, in short, you cannot touch on any aspect of this work and ignore the appropriate Government Department; but what is the position of the local people who are getting circulars and letters from different Departments, but all relating to the one subject? Would it not be better if all that correspondence, all those instructions, came through the one medium?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am familiar with the organisation of a county council, and appreciate how celerity in the business is assisted by having the clerk as the channel of communication, and so far as it is practicable in dealing with this problem that course is being followed, but I would ask the hon. Member to accept it from me, as I am sure he will on consideration, that the analogy he quoted, though helpful, is not a complete one, having regard to the difference between the two problems.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 110.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[5.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Brass, Sir W.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cross, R. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bull, B. B.
Crossley, A. C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Burghley, Lord
Crowder, J. F. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Culverwell, C. T.


Assheton, R.
Butcher, H. W.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Cartland, J. R. H.
De la Bère, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Denville, Alfred


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Doland, G. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Dugdale, Captain T. L,


Bernays, R. H.
Channon, H.
Dunglass, Lord


Blair, Sir R.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Ellis, Sir G.




Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Fleming, E. L.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Furness, S. N.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Smithers, Sir W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Markham, S. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Granville, E. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Gridley, Sir A. B
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Meller, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Storey, S.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Moreing, A. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hambro, A. V.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tale, Mavis C.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Munro, P,
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Bushan-
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Touche, G. C.


Hopkinson, A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Peake, O.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N)
Petherick, M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hunloke, H. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, T.
Pilkington, R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wise, A. R.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Levy, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wragg, H.


Lewis, O.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Lipson, D, L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)



Loftus, P. C.
Salmon, Sir I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salt, E. W.
Major Sir James Edmondson


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.
and Lieut.- Colonel Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, C. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pearson, A.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Poole, C. C.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hardie, Agnes
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Collindridge, F.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Strauss, C. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Foot, D. M.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.







Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Williams, T. (Don Valley)




Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: Before we pass this Clause I should like to make certain observations with reference to it. In the Debate upon the Amendment of which we have just disposed I referred to the novel character of the service of the Bill. We all appreciate the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has to face, but we appreciate also the spirit of our people, should the challenge come to them, and if I say anything by way of criticism of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in exercising the powers conferred upon him by the Clause, it is not because I believe that the people of this country have the jitters, but in the hope that we may, by continual pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman, urge him on to greater activity and to activity on a larger scale than before.
By the Bill the right hon. Gentleman inherits the duties of the Secretary of State under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, and takes over major responsibility. He has told us that he is the dominant force in policy on this matter, so dominant that he is in process of terrorising the local authorities. I will not pursue that point further, but the Committee is entitled to know how far the right hon. Gentleman is going in carrying out these very important functions. The right hon. Gentleman has been living with this problem ever since his appointment, but, in my view, he is still not thinking of it in terms which are big enough or in terms of organisation big enough to face the realities of the situation which would undoubtedly confront us should war break out. It is true that he inherits the functions to which I have referred, but he inherits also three years of inactivity on the part of the National Government. For that we cannot blame him. He is the victim of that inordinate delay, which took place notwithstanding the pressure put upon the Government by local authorities to make adequate preparations. Notwithstanding the pressure of public opinion—enlightened public opinion—on these matters, for three years next to nothing was done.
One sympathises with the right hon. Gentleman in having now to catch up with the arrears of delay which took place before he was appointed, and I think the Committee will agree that he has shown commendable energy. No one would say that the right hon. Gentleman has a sinecure job—far from it, especially when he has to order Ministers about under Subsection (3) of this Clause. It is important that the Government should visualise this problem on a scale which will give adequate confidence to a confident people that, should trouble come, there can be no doubt about the result. With a new service there are bound to be new and very difficult problems upon which there will be honest differences of opinion, but in a time of growing difficulty decision is imperative. A remark made by the late Lord Oxford and Asquith, "Wait and see," brought down violent and terrible abuse upon his head; there are times when one cannot wait and see, and when action which may be doubtful is better than no action at all. There are matters in which delay has taken place because of sincere doubt as to the wisdom of a particular line of policy or a particular kind of provision against air raid. Such delays cannot go on. After all, this, being a new service, is bound, in its nature, to be largely experimental but it is wrong, even though the high authorities often doubt the wisdom of a certain course of action, to debar those who wish to make experiments from making them.
In the absence of experience of the dreadful realities of a modern air raid, experiment is the only way in which we can get adequate Civil Defence. Unfortunately, in my view, and I think in the view of my hon. Friends on this side, there have been periods of indecision and delay in settling questions of major policy. A matter upon which I cannot enter in detail on this Clause is the question of deep shelters. No doubt some opportunity may occur in the course of the Committee stage of discussing that matter in detail. We have waited for some months now, and only three or four days ago did we have the Government's decision. I am not so sure that that decision is perfectly fair and specific now that we have it. Other questions of major policy do not seem to have been settled.
It is essential, if those who are taking part in this work are to carry it on with the energy and enthusiasm for which we hoped, that they should feel that at the headquarters of the Government decisions on policy will be taken as quickly as possible.
There has not only been delay in deciding questions of policy, but delay in deciding upon action. Hardly a day goes by but hon. Members of this House—most hon. Members I imagine, at any rate all those who are interested in this problem— receive one or more letters—I must have received hundreds in the last few months—complaining about the delays of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or of the subsidiary Department, to which he farms out some part of the work. They complain of no replies, or mere formal replies, to letters or of an enormous amount of delay in arriving at decisions on matters concerning action by local authorities. That is unfair to the local authorities, who have a heavy burden of responsibility towards the people within their boundaries. Most local authorities are only too anxious to make what provision they can against air raids. They are carrying, because the right hon. Gentleman has not persuaded the Government to carry, a very heavy financial burden, and it is they and not the right hon. Gentleman who have to face the local electorate, and they are therefore entitled to expedition of decision upon action which they wish to take.
When the right hon. Gentleman has assumed the mantle which now falls upon him and the additional, odd, spare mantles which come to him in the Bill, and has developed all his power and stands, in all his glory, as the great coordinator of Civil Defence, I hope that when the Bill is on the Statute Book, and he is this mighty man, we may look forward to operations on a scale commensurate with the size of the problem, to speedy decisions on major questions of policy, and to speedy decisions on action to betaken by the local authorities, on whom, in the long run, this matter must in the last resort depend. I have tried not to be hypercritical. It is my nature to be somewhat critical of anything that the Government do; it is a growing virtue of mine, if I may say so; but I have tried to put the case fairly, as one who feels some responsibility in

what I believe to be the most gigantic experiment that this country has ever made. The Army, the Navy and the Air Force are now well founded and established, but there is a new technique, a new art and science, and these have to be developed to deal with a new and more terrifying form of war. If the right hon. Gentleman can secure that development, the nation will be grateful, but if we do not get that developing and growing action which we require, and which in the public interest we demand, we shall continue to be even more critical in the future than we have been in the past.

5.32 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: This Clause brings about a transfer of functions of the Secretary of State, and I want to be quite clear that the functions are transferred, and that the right hon. Gentleman has the power and the organisation necessary for carrying out these duties. I believe that the country and the local authorities would be very much reassured if he could make it clear to the Committee that he now has the necessary staff and machinery for carrying out this work. I remember that in the early days he said that the Home Office had placed some rooms at his disposal, and that there was a considerable section in the Home Office responsible for air-raid defence, originally, I think, under one of the high officials of that Department. I hope it will be made clear that the staff and organisation of that Department is now directly under the right hon. Gentleman's control. If these powers are to be transferred to him, the country will want to be quite clear that he has a proper department, staff and organisation to enable him to carry out his duties efficiently.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: It seems to me that the few criticisms that were made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) were somewhat fantastic. In the first place, he accused the Government of three years' delay in what we might call passive defence, but I would ask him to review, not only his own personal record, but the record of the party he represents, in the realm of active defence. He also referred to the fact that costly experiments with the ratepayers' money have been somewhat discouraged. Experiments are exceedingly costly, and they are more costly than ever when they are


paid for out of the pockets of the ratepayers.

The Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that that question has already been disposed of and decided.

Mr. Taylor: I was merely endeavouring to the best of my ability to answer the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope now that Sub-section (3) of Clause I has been agreed upon, my right hon. Friend will see that there is no overlapping. There have been a great many cases of overlapping in the past, but I hope my right hon. Friend will see to it that, when the time comes, nobody will be able to turn round and say that we were wrong in allowing Sub-section (3) to stand part of the Bill because there has been overlapping between various organisations.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is again going back to what has already been decided.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal how far it is proposed to work this Ministry through the regional organisation to which he alluded earlier in the afternoon. He will recollect that, soon after that regional organisation was established, I drew his attention to the fact that in one or two parts of the country delay was being experienced because negotiations which had reached a reasonably advanced stage with the central Departments had been stopped, and were being transferred to the regional organisation and started all over again with that organisation. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us how far he has got towards the stage when his regional organisation will be capable of functioning completely, and when the original negotiations with the central Departments can be regarded as having ceased?
With regard to the number of persons actually under his immediate control, I know he has Mr. Eady, whose speech after the crisis of last September at any rate assured us that he was under no illusion as to where obstacles existed in the past; and he has certain other gentlemen who seem to sit round him when he receives the very large conferences that come to see him from the local authorities. What is the number of persons on his staff, and how are they distributed

among the various grades of the Civil Service? I know he has a Private Secretary, because he lost a letter of mine for a fortnight. He has a most efficient Parliamentary Private Secretary, who saves the Minister a very great deal of trouble. But we on this side of the Committee are exceedingly anxious that this should be a real Department, functioning with some idea of the importance of the issues with which it deals. We do not want a repetition of what happened with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, where we had a quite deplorable exhibition. Part of the trouble of the present Government is that they think that by appointing a person the job gets done, but when the person is appointed all that it means is that there is a reasonable prospect of some effort being made to get the job done. We are very desirous that this Department, to which we attach the greatest importance, should be regarded as being at least the equivalent of any of the three Service Departments, and that it should be adequately staffed to carry out the heavy duties and responsibilities that are being thrown upon it.

5.40 p.m.

Dr. Guest: The Minister, when he was replying to me earlier in the discussion, talked about the stretcher bearer parties being under the Home Office because they were working with other organisations that worked in the streets, such as breakdown gangs and decontamination squads. That struck me as being a very inconclusive argument. I do not see any reason why stretcher bearer parties should be under the Home Office instead of under the Ministry of Health as part of the casualty organisation.

The Chairman: The hon. Member also is going back to something that has already been decided.

Dr. Guest: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis; but how is this definition going to be arrived at? That is really what we want to know.

5.41 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I should like to deal first with the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and reinforced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I think I explained in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates that I had taken over in its entirety the organisation that has previously


served the Home Secretary in connection with air-raid precautions. That organisation includes, not only the staff accommodated at the Home Office, but the whole of the large staff at Horseferry House. That staff has, since last September, been very greatly augmented as regards technical officers, administrative officers and general staff. I should be glad to give hon. Members who are interested a statement showing roughly the organisation of the staff and the strength of the various grades. It is a very substantial staff, and it is wholly under my direct control.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Was not that staff known until this morning as the Air-Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office? Is it intended to alter the name?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think the name matters very much; the point is that the staff is entirely under my control, and that I am not, as I think the hon. Baronet suggested, confined to a few people in rooms placed at my disposal in the Home Office.
I do not know that I can follow the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), because most of his remarks appear to have been out of order, but perhaps I might say that, as regards the distribution of functions contemplated in this Clause, one has to pay regard to the general lay-out of the organisation, and great stress was laid by local officers on the importance of having, as far as possible, things which are cognate under a single control. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who, I am sorry to say, is not at the moment in his place, I have often admired his resourcefulness, but never more than today, because he contrived in his last speech to use arguments which seemed to me directly to contradict the arguments he had used in his earlier speech. In his earlier speech he criticised me for having said that in some matters there must be finality. He said I was dictatorial. But in his later speech he said that decision is imperative, that action which is doubtful is better than no action at all. Really, that is rather inconsistent.
Perhaps I can illustrate the conditions under which one has to work in practice. I have been told that it is necessary to

pay close regard to the views of local authorities, and I agree; but I would point out that the views of local authorities are not always entirely consistent. I had, in relation to the metropolitan boroughs, whose importance in local government I do not for a moment wish to underestimate, two demands. One was that the responsibility for first-aid parties should go to the Ministry of Health, and the other was that the responsibility for organising air-raid precautions should be that of the Commissioner of Police. I acceded to the one request, but felt unable to accede to the other, and, as regards the request to which I acceded, I at once had strong protests from other local authorities.
I mention that only as illustrating the conditions under which one has to work. One has to try to strike the right balance between willingness to consider, and if necessary reconsider, the views of the local authorities, whose responsibility for collaboration, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield has said, is absolutely essential, and closuring discussion at some crucial point and saying, "Here is a decision given after consideration of the views of all concerned; the matter is such that if we are to proceed the decision must be considered as final." That is the position in which we find ourselves, and unless it is recognised I do not think there is any chance of getting the expedition and drive which are essential in this vitally important matter.

Mr. Ede: The right hoc. Gentleman has said nothing on the point about which I asked him—the regional organisations.

Sir J. Anderson: I am sorry. I have a note of it here. I was anxious to be brief. The hon. Gentleman called my attention to the danger that in the process of delegating responsibility to the new regional associations there might be some hold-up. I took the matter up at once with my Department in order that such a hold-up might be avoided. It may be that there have been one or two occasions when, instead of pursuing a matter centrally, we thought it better to leave the local organisations to deal with it; but for some weeks past that organisation—which took up its quarters in the different regions only, I think, on 1st March—has been entrusted with powers of decision which have been delegated


from the central Department, putting the organisation in a position to dispose of certain matters finally, and in regard to other matters the local organisation can, in many cases, render a very useful service by undertaking the preliminary examination of schemes sent up. I feel confident that when the organisation is fully in its stride—and it is rather early days for new people to be masters of every aspect of the complicated matters with which they have to deal in Civil Defence—they will be able to bring about a very substantial speeding up of the process of examining and pronouncing on the schemes-; which are put forward.

Mr. Lunn: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) regarding financial arrangements with the local authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that the assistance of the local authorities is so valuable, it is really important that he should say something as to what are to be the temptations to them to carry on the work as he desires.

The Chairman: It is very doubtful whether that is a matter which should be raised on this Clause.

CLAUSE 2.—(Designation of premises.)

5.50 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "building," to insert, "or land, garden, area, pathway appertaining thereto"
This is really a drafting Amendment. It corrects what appears to be an omission from the Clause. Clause 2 gives the local authority power to designate a building for use as a public air-raid shelter, but it does not mention the land—it might be a garden or a court-yard or an approach to the building—round about that building, and it may be necessary to add the words of the Amendment to make that quite clear.

5.51 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member has treated this as a mere drafting Amendment, but I do not think I can quite take that view of his proposal. It seems to me to make a fundamental, far-reaching change. Clause 2 was framed to enable local authorities to select, and so far

as necessary adapt for use in connection with Civil Defence, either as air-raid shelters or otherwise, existing buildings; and the idea underlying the Clause is that the necessary adaptations could, in the majority of cases, be made without interfering, otherwise than temporarily, with the normal use of those buildings. The decision to confine the Clause to buildings was quite deliberate. A Clause dealing with land appears later in the Bill—Clause 7. If the scope of Clause 2 were expanded in the manner suggested we should be going probably far beyond the purpose of the Clause in its application to buildings. If, for example, land is to be designated with a view to its being used in an emergency for the purposes of an air-raid shelter, that land would be sterilised in the meantime; it would not be possible to use it for any other purpose. It might be valuable building land, or it might be required for all sorts of other purposes.
I do not say for a moment that there is not substance in the suggested Amendment and that it might not be an advantage if we could do something on the lines the hon. Member has in mind, but we would have to consider the wording very carefully, and any provision we make would have to be definitely more limited in its scope than that of the Amendment. Are we, for example, to say that a local authority may take part of a private garden of a dwelling-house and designate it for the purpose of establishing a warden's post there? Should we all be agreed that it would be a reasonable thing to allow the local authority to do that?
On the other hand, to put an argument in favour of the purpose the hon. Member has in mind, there might be an area where it was very difficult, by selection of existing buildings, to provide shelter accommodation on the scale required. It might be possible in such a locality to make use of passages between buildings, or land adjacent to buildings which themselves could be used for shelter purposes, in order to provide accommodation on a greater scale. So far as that goes, I am entirely in sympathy with the Amendment, but I see considerable difficulty in achieving that purpose by the insertion of words so wide as those suggested. If the hon. Member would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment, I would undertake that the question of using land, as distinct from buildings, for purposes


such as this Clause contemplates would be considered at a later stage.

Dr. Guest: Is there not a distinction between land—the right hon. Gentleman used to phrase "building land," which I certainly did not intend the Amendment to refer to, and land of the sort covered by the words used in the Amendment, which are intended to be a translation of the legal phrase "curtilage" The curtilage of a building is, surely, in certain parts inseparable from the building. It may be only an area or a yard.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: My right hon. Friend suggested that the Amendment gave to the Government—or, rather, the local authority in this case—powers more extensive than it was my right hon. Friend's intention to give them. He then referred to the powers contained in Clause 7. That Clause provides for the compulsory acquisition of the garden and other land. Surely, if my right hon. Friend contemplates the power of compulsory acquisition, it is not going too far to give power to designate land for a similar purpose.

5.56 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Norwood (Mr. Sandys), I must have failed to make my meaning clear. So far as the purpose of Clause 2 is concerned, it does not range as wide as the Amendment, but there is a later Clause, Clause 7, which does deal rather drastically with land. This Amendment would apply rather to Clause 7 than to Clause 2.

Mr. Sandys: It gives power to designate rather than to acquire.

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly it goes further. If that power of designation were in fact used in the case of land, it is almost inconceivable that it would be possible to preserve the normal use of the land. In the case of a building it can be so preserved, but not in the case of land. It really amounts to expropriation, or sterilisation, in the case of land. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), I quite understood his purpose. I think he himself has furnished a reason for reconsidering the wording of the Amendment, because it would undoubtedly go a good deal further than what is described as the

curtilage of a dwelling-house. He might consider, for instance, whether the power to deal with land should be limited to cases where a building adjacent is being so designated. There is an Amendment on Clause 4 which would meet that objection. If the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, we would consider the matter, and perhaps bring up an Amendment to deal with it at a later stage.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Suppose a building was under construction, and it was desired to make an outside entrance, which could not be done without taking the land itself. What would be the position then?

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I am sure my hon. Friend will consider whether or not he will press this Amendment. But I do not think, and I am sure my hon. Friend will not think, that the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal yet goes quite far enough. Moreover, I think the Lord Privy Seal has somewhat misunderstood the scope of Clause 7. Clause 7 deals with land where it is not intended to disturb the surface, but presumably it is land where you intend to make a tunnel, where the only disturbance is the making of an entrance to the tunnel or trenches. That is in a different line of country from the provisions of Clause 2. A number of cases may arise in connection with the operation of Clause 2. It may be possible, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) suggested, that you might need to acquire a small piece of land beside a building in order to construct a proper access to the building. It may be that the building would have land surrounding it, the use of which would not be destroyed if part of it were required in order to extend the building, and therefore, the area of shelter. You might need it for the purpose of strengthening the building itself.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we ought to contemplate the possibility of interfering with people's gardens? I agree that, in the case of ordinary suburban or working-class gardens it would be serious—though it must be remembered that there is a check on the local authority by the Minister who must be notified—but there are other and larger gardens perhaps running to an acre or two acres of land. If a local authority needed land for the


purposes of a first-aid post, or for a shelter for wardens, or in connection with the Auxiliary Fire Service or for garaging ambulances, I would not say that, if a garden was an acre or two acres in extent, it would necessarily be wrong to take a small part of the land for these purposes. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone quite far enough in meeting the real point raised in the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but if he will take a comprehensive view of the considerations which arise out of the Clause before the Report stage, and will try to meet the points which have been raised, I believe that my hon. Friend might perhaps be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
It must be remembered that this Clause not only provides for the designation of particular buildings for air-raid shelters, but that paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of the Clause provides also for the actual use of the property by the local authority in carrying out any of their Civil Defence functions, and it might conceivably be that in a given place they might need to acquire land outside the the rather narrow provisions of Clause 7, which contemplates no disturbance of the surf act; for the purposes of first-aid posts, the fire brigade or other services connected with Civil Defence. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee that he will consider all these points in drafting his Amendment before the Report stage, perhaps my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: There is another point which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman also to take into consideration. It is intended that emergency shelters shall be established every 250 yards along the main shopping streets of many districts to accommodate not more than 50 persons. There are a number of areas where it would be impossible to find such emergency shelters either in buildings or shops, and where there is no underground accommodation at all in the shops. It will be necessary for local authorities to find some other places in which to put emergency shelters, and I know that in some cases they have under consideration the placing of a number of shelters in gardens or open spaces. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will keep in mind the fact that there

will be a number of cases where it will be necessary to designate an open space or a passage as distinct from a building.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the last two words of the Amendment. It is only land appertaining to the building which it is proposed to designate. If we are to have the same timidity displayed with regard to the very large subject with which we are dealing in this Bill as the right hon. Gentleman has shown with regard to this Amendment, we must despair of getting an adequate conception of the whole problem. We are dealing with the designation of premises, and only with the designation of premises, for two specific purposes, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has pointed out. I am more concerned with the second of these purposes:
for use, in the event of hostile attack, by the local authority in carrying out any of their civil defence functions.
That position will come into effect only when the King's enemies are in active operation against the State, and I have no doubt that in such circumstances the rights of private property will receive very short shrift at the hands of any person, military or civil, who is engaged in the defence of the Realm. It may very well be that a good many things that we do not contemplate to-day may have to be done on the spur of the moment, and if any questions were raised this House would immediately indemnify the person who had acted bona fide in the public interest in such circumstances. But it is desirable that, as far as possible, the whole scheme should be prepared beforehand, so that everybody should know where safeguards are provided and where the persons in authority are to be found in regard to all matters connected with Civil Defence. It is one of the anomalies of the law of this country that land includes a building, but a building does not include land. If the right hon. Gentle-had put "land" in the Clause we could have taken the buildings on the land, but because he has used the word "building" the local authorities can touch nothing but the buildings and can designate nothing but the buildings.
As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) pointed out in the example he


gave, a building may be entirely useless for any purpose for which it is required if you cannot make some slight adjustment on the land appertaining to the building. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the far safer course, and one which would convince hon. Members on this side of the Committee that he really is in earnest, would be to accept the Amendment, and to say that he might have to consider the exact wording when we got to the Report stage. If we could get the Amendment into the Bill at this stage, it would be some indication that the kind of power sought by my hon. Friend, and to which I do not think the Minister himself objects, would really be available to the local authorities.

6.9 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I think there is some misapprehension in the mind of hon. Members. It is not a question of timidity or of whether we should have power to deal with land which is adjacent to buildings that are going to be designated. Hon. Members have overlooked the provisions of Clause 4, which makes it quite clear that, when a building is designated, the local authority can enter upon it and execute works in the building or in or on any adjacent building or land. What I had in mind when I said that the point arose on Clause 4, was that, in view of the provisions of Clause 4, the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member would possibly have to be interpreted as applying only to the designation of land adjacent to a building which itself is not being designated. Clause 4 deals with land which is adjacent to a building which is being designated and which is being entered upon for that purpose. If we are to make a clean job of this, we ought to look at the wording again carefully, and I am prepared to give the assurance for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has asked, that the whole matter shall be considered comprehensively between now and the Report stage. It is not quite as simple as it looks at first sight.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Fleming: I wish to mention as an actual instance what was pointed out to me about a fortnight ago. This very matter arose in respect of my own cellar. An A.R.P. inspector, who came round

inspecting cellars, said that a cellar should be suitable as an air-raid shelter for 50 persons or more. I asked him how he intended to get people into the cellar, because there was no entrance from outside without going through the building itself. He suggested that the most suitable thing to do was to remove one of the cellar windows and make an exit to the nearest gate on the main highway, and in that way use up part of the garden. I listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Dr. H. Guest) and could not help being struck by his Amendment, which, although rather badly worded, is one of which my right hon. Friend should take particular notice, because, although Clause 4 undoubtedly deals to a certain extent with matters raised in the proposal, it would be far better to make the position clear in Clause 2 by the addition of the words "curtilage thereto."

Dr. Guest: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert:
or
(c) for use as an air-raid shelter for employ és in factory premises, mines or commercial buildings, in cases where it is not possible to provide shelter upon such premises
The Amendment, which stands in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, should be considered in conjunction with an Amendment to Clause 12, which for the convenience of the Committee I will read. It is as follows:
In the event of the owner of the factory premises, mine or commercial building being able to show to the satisfaction of the Minister or the local authority, as the case may be, that he is unable to provide the required shelter upon his own premises, he shall be entitled to request the local authority to construct for his employ és, shelter on other suitable land or premises, provided that the aforesaid owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the local authority for the expenditure incurred, and shall likewise enjoy the benefits of the grants provided under Section seventeen of this Act.
The purpose of these two Amendments is to meet the case of the factory occupier or the owner of a mine, or commercial building who, for structural reasons, or for the reason of lack of space, is physically unable to provide the required


shelter for his workpeople on his own premises. I have an instance of this difficulty in my own constituency. There is there an important telephone factory in which, I am assured, it is structurally impossible to provide the required shelter for the large number of workpeople which it employs. That is not an isolated case. I am sure the Lord Privy Seal knows of many cases of this kind in practically all the big towns all over the country. It is a gap in the Bill which I and my hon. Friends who are associated with me in the Amendment think should be filled.
The purpose of the Amendment is not to safeguard the factory owners, but to see that the workpeople in those premises are provided with the shelter which the Bill requires. I recognise that it is open to the occupier of the factory under Clause 11, in sending in the report which is required, stating what measures he is taking to provide shelter accommodation for his workpeople, to say that he is providing no shelter accommodation because the structural conditions of his factory or commercial building do not allow him to do so. In these circumstances I suppose there would be no alternative open to the local authority but to exempt him from providing the shelter accommodation which the Bill requires from other employers of labour. In that case, the workpeople in these premises would remain unprotected. At any rate nobody, under the terms of the Bill, would have the obligation of providing protection for them. The purpose of this Amendment is to see that the position is not left there.
We propose that the local authority in these special cases, which while they are numerous are nevertheless the exception, should have the power to provide the necessary shelter for the workpeople in the factories, mines and commercial buildings in question and to charge the employers with the cost entailed. That would ensure that the financial burden of providing shelter for workpeople would be shared equally by all employers of labour throughout the country. It would also ensure that without exception—and this is the aspect of the matter with which we are more especially concerned—all workpeople in factories, mines or business premises of more than a certain size would be provided with proper shelter protection.
The first of the two Amendments deals with the powers of the local authority and the second with the position of employers of labour. In Clause 2 (1) it will be seen that the local authority is to be given the power to designate a building or part of a building for use as a public air-raid shelter. Under the Clause as it stands the local authorities would not have power to designate a building for the purpose of sheltering workpeople from any neighbouring factory, mine or commercial premises, and it is that power which we seek to give to local authorities by this Amendment. In view, therefore, of the importance of filling this gap in the machinery provided by the Bill I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.

6.20 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: It may facilitate matters if I say at once that I am entirely in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. There is undoubtedly a gap and it is desirable that it should be filled. I had hoped, when the Bill was drafted, that it was a gap that might be filled by administrative action. It may well be that it is desirable to have a specific provision on the lines proposed in the Amendment, so that the position may be perfectly clear. I am quite ready to say that I accept the Amendment, if it commends itself to the Committee, subject to this condition that there has not been time to have the wording looked at by the Parliamentary draftsman. If it should be necessary to propose some alteration of wording on Report, I hope that I shall not be accused of breach of faith.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: In this matter I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be too hasty. I agree with the purpose of the Amendment but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what its consequences will be. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) said that it was to deal with an exceptional case, but in some localities it will be the rule and not the exception. How the technical staff of the local authorities will be able to undertake this work I do not know. At the present time there is enough work in the Bill to keep the whole of the technical staff of the borough engineer's department fully occupied, without doing any of their ordinary work, and if we are to say that


the technical people employed by the local authorities shall make arrangements for providing shelters for factories and other premises where they have no shelters, I cannot see how it will be possible to carry out the work.
I am in sympathy with what the hon. Member for Norwood has said, but I would point out to the Lord Privy Seal that this is merely putting another burden on to the local authorities. I do not know whether he is trying to break them altogether. They are already doing work under A.R.P. for which they receive no grant. For instance, the borough engineer may be practically giving his whole time to A.R.P. work and the local authority has to find his salary. It is almost impossible to get the services of technical people. The local authorities are advertising for them and cannot get them. Before the right hon. Gentleman finally decides to accept the Amendment I hope that he will consider whether the local authorities will be able to carry out this extra work.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Doland: I do not want to go over the ground covered by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), but I can assure hon. Members that this is a most important Amendment, and we are thankful for the sympathy extended to it by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). He has raised the question who is to do the work and who is to pay for it. Under the Bill quite clearly the local authorities have to do the work, and if the work is to be extended it is the duty of the Government to say in what way they will finance it. The work has to be done. The hon. Member for North Tottenham has said that in his constituency this necessity may be the rule and not the exception, and I would say the same thing about the borough of Wandsworth, part of which I represent. Wandsworth is the biggest borough in London, and in our survey of suitable premises, particularly basement shelters, we have discovered that only 3 or 4 per cent. of basements are suitable as shelters. It has been pointed out often when we come to the question of air-raid shelters that we get back to the number of suitable basements in the neighbourhood. Although we may have many basements, we have no exits to them and no oppor-

tunities of making exits. They would be nothing less, in my opinion, than death traps. In regard to the necessity of providing air-raid shelters where a person or firm under the obligation to provide shelter finds it impossible to do so owing to the structural condition of the premises, the Government must provide some means of getting over the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member. I hope that now that the Minister has practically accepted the Amendment in its revised form it will become part of the Bill and go on to the Statute Book.

Sir Robert Tasker: With regard to the difficulty that many local authorities are experiencing in finding sufficient technical staff, I would point out that many have employed outside architects to make their surveys.

6.26 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: The speech of the hon. Member for Balham (Mr. Doland) makes an overwhelming argument for deep shelters. If it be true that only 3 or 4 per cent of the basements in Wandsworth can be made available as shelters, then the argument is very materially strengthened that something should be done to make emergency provision on the lines of deep shelters. In the constituency that I represent many of the factories, workshops and commercial buildings are of a very flimsy character, many of them old and out of date, and constructed of wood. To attempt to make an air-raid shelter out of their basement would be to create frightful death traps. If we are going to translate into an Act of Parliament the proposals in this Amendment we are going to embark on a very large and expensive undertaking. When we come to Clause 7 we get to something very controversial and I do not intend to enter into that matter, but it does seem to me that the speech of the hon. Member for Balham has strengthened the case for something in the form of deep shelters.

6.29 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wright: I strongly support the Amendment. Although one realises that there are certain areas where it should be exceedingly difficult to carry out this work we must remember that if it is difficult for the local authority to carry out the work, how can the individual manufacturer be expected to do it?
There are many areas where the intention of this Amendment could be carried out most satisfactorily. I am thinking particularly of my own city of Birmingham and of the works of which I am chairman. We have three moderate sized works in one street and not one of the factories has any spare land whatever. It would be exceedingly difficult to carry out the provisions of the Bill. There is, however, in the street a large playground where trenches were actually made during the September crisis, and last week I started negotiations to see whether we could prepare a scheme and get the City of Birmingham Corporation to co-operate with us to carry out the very proposal which is now put forward in the Amendment. That is a case where the provision might be useful and, therefore, I want to take this opportunity of supporting the Amendment.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the observations made by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) I feel that it is necessary for me to say something because I am well acquainted with some big industrial centres. There are a large number of factories employing over 50 people where it is quite impossible to provide accommodation on or adjacent to the premises. That is the difficulty. But does the hon. Member suggest that we should take no steps whatever to safeguard the workers?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I did not say that. I entirely support the Amendment, but I suggested that before the Lord Privy Seal accepts it he should make sure that it is possible for local authorities to carry it out, because many of them, I think, would be unable to do so.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I am glad to have that correction. The point is that there are a large number of factories which will not be able to provide the accommodation. Only this morning I had the plans of a large factory employing over 1,200 people brought to my notice, and it is quite impossible for that big factory to find any shelter accommodation at all. This is only one of a large number, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to accept the Amendment

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope I shall be excused for saying a word or two on the Amend-

ment. On the Second Reading of this Bill I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that there would be confusion as a consequence of the framing of this Clause, and that in order to ensure adequate protection for each community there should be one authority responsible for seeing that every kind of air-raid shelter is supplied. What is the situation now? We have to fill a gap, and are we filling it completely? We are now in a situation where factory owners are responsible for providing shelter for their employés. Local authorities are to provide public shelters for the general public, and now we are to have a third kind; that local authorities shall provide shelters in their area for a particular factory. When employers provide a shelter for their employés they are responsible for the attention and care of that factory. When a local authority provides a shelter for the general public the local authority is responsible for the care and attention of that shelter; but when a local authority provides a shelter which has to be paid for by the employers of a factory, who is to be responsible for its care and attention? Has that gap been filled? As a result of the lack of intelligence displayed on this whole question we now have confusion, and I suggest that the Minister would be well advised to take the Amendment and the Clause and make a complete change which would ensure that there should be one authority responsible for all the shelters in a particular area, and see that the authority has adequate and necessary means for carrying out the work.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. H, Morrison: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) should so gratuituously and needlessly misrepresent the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). My hon. Friend was perfectly clear in what he said. He recognised that it was a real problem, and that it should be met and solved, but he raised the point as to how the Amendment would work, as he was perfectly entitled to do. I cannot understand how anyone listening to him should make the observations which the hon. Member did. The Committee will agree that a real difficulty has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). There are owners of factories who could not put the building right, as it is, but it may be that a yard or two away there is something else


which can be utilised for the purpose. It must not be far away according to the philosophy of the Lord Privy Seal; otherwise he would be in difficulties about his argument on the provision of deep shelters. They must be near. But local authorities and their technical officers are going to have a very big job of work to do under the Bill. I am certain that they will do their best to meet their obligations, as they ought to do.
But they are going to have thousands of buildings to inspect, thousands of buildings to strengthen and thousands of new problems to handle for the purposes of public shelters, and it is the case that there is a shortage of technical staff. I am not referring to the existing staff of local authorities, but they are finding trouble in recruiting additional technical staff. There is a real shortage, and if local authorities are going to be involved in heavy expenses on buildings with which they must be concerned they may be prejudiced in doing work which each private owner might wish to be done or in providing public shelters. I say that we ought not to land on local authorities a responsibility like this unless we are reasonably sure that they can carry it out.
Local authorities have not been consulted about this Amendment. It is a very big Amendment. On the last Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted its spirit and purpose but would deal with it on Report in his own way. Some of my hon. Friends resented that attitude and suggested that he should adopt the Amendment and tidy it up afterwards. As one who has had to handle a Bill on behalf of a Government Department my sympathy is with the right hon. Gentleman. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is quite sympathetic about the Amendment and intends to meet the problem, but that he will bring up his own Amendment on Report stage? In the meantime he could consult local authorities and consider the best way of doing it. I think they should be consulted before the actual wording of the Clause is settled, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should handle it in that way.
We think that in the provision of shelter the Government should have gone in for a comprehensive policy of complete public

responsibility for communal shelters, in which public authorities should have the on us of providing adequate and proper shelter for the whole of the population at work or at home in co-operation with private employers where it is a factory, or commercial building or a mine, or by municipal co-operation if it is a case for shelter for the people on the streets or at home. That would have been the right policy to pursue, but the Government have not pursued that policy. They have pursued a policy of farming out among different people the responsibility for shelter. In certain cases the private individual has to erect his own steel shelter or concrete shelter, if that is more suitable; the owners of commercial premises have to do so for their part, mine owners for their part and factory owners for their part. It is a policy of diffusing responsibility instead of making it a definite responsibility on public authority.
Under the Amendment any factory owner faced with difficulties, instead of accepting his statutory responsibilities under the Bill, will be able, as far as I can see, to delegate that responsibility to the local authority provided he meets the cost and, of course, receives an appropriate grant in due course. It is true that the owner will pay, but the responsiblity for the work, as far as I can see, will be pushed on to the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to do that without consulting local authorities. I suggest, therefore, that it will be far better, if this problem is to be solved with good will, that local authorities should have the responsibility planted upon them in a way which they think convenient. They will be in a nasty situation if in the utilisation of the services of this technical staff it is a question whether the mass of the population must come first or whether the factory must come first. That will be a nice point in certain circumstances. The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment can see that the Committee is sympathetic regarding the problem, and I suggest that he should withdraw it on the understanding that appropriate consultations will take place and that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to meet the substance of the Amendment on Report stage.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I only want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-


morrow he will find that the observations I made with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) will be found to be correct.

Mr. Morrison: I will, of course, do as the hon. Member suggests. I am sorry that he is still worrying about that point, but I heard every word that my hon. Friend said, and I am sure that the hon. Member is wrong.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Morgan: I wish to support the Amendment, and in doing so I will try to speak in the spirit of sweet reasonableness to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) referred. As far as I have been able to gather, every hon. Member who has spoken on this Amendment has been in sympathy with the principle of it. Therefore, I can see no reason for quibbling. The major objection that was put forward by the right hon. Member for South Hackney was that the Amendment would throw too much of the onus on the local authorities. If there are factories—and there is no doubt that there are—where they cannot provide protection, the Amendment would make it possible for them to ask the local authority to send an expert adviser to look at the factory, and then, if it were found that they could not provide the necessary shelter, it would be the duty of the local authority to provide it. This is not a case of helping the factory owners. We have to consider the provision of protection for those people who work in certain premises which do not give the people any adequate protection. This is such a serious question that, if there are not sufficient expert or technical men available in the different districts, the local authorities must make the necessary appeal to the central authority for expert assistance. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is going to find some words that will meet the principle of the Amendment.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will accept the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), for otherwise a situation will be created that will produce very deep resentment on the part of local authorities generally. Already the local authorities are overburdened

with tasks in connection with air-raid precautions, and had they been consulted as freely as they ought to have been by the Lord Privy Seal, he would have learned a great deal, which he does not appear to know now, of the feeling which the local authorities have that they are being seriously imposed upon, and that the central Government is placing upon the local authorities liabilities which ought to be accepted by it.

Mr. Sandys: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but would he or some other hon. Member opposite suggest an alternative method of providing protection for the workpeople in these particular factories? I am sure hon. Members opposite wish to see these people protected, but it is no good their simply saying that the local authorities are overburdened. Some means have to be found of providing protection for these workpeople, and so far no alternative has been suggested.

Mr. Adams: Surely, the onus ought to be upon the Government in this matter, or provision could be made in the communal shelters for cases of the sort contemplated in the Amendment; but as a member of a local authority it seems to me to be entirely unjust that a private individual— or a corporation— should be able to avoid his responsibility towards his employés. Moreover, those who support the Amendment seem to conclude that every local authority whose services might be required in this way is solvent. What proof have they of that? Many local authorities, so they allege, are not solvent. Their difficulties are being intensified in many directions by the international situation. Yet the local authorities— the ratepayers— would be required to take over a duty which ought to be undertaken by these employers. What difficulty would there be in private individuals or corporations having the use of the technicians of the local authorities, if they were available, to assist them in this matter, without placing financial or other liabilities upon the local authorities? I agree that the argument has been in favour of deep shelters, and protection of that character seems to be almost imperative, but that matter needs to be examined in detail, in consultation with the local authorities concerned. I am certain that the burden of the local authorities labours towards the community in


relation to air-raid precautions is excessive at the present time, and if this additional liability were placed upon their shoulders, in a large number of cases, particularly in the case of the smaller local authorities, it might not be carried out.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I wish to support the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I cannot help thinking that, from the point of view of procedure and the general convenience of the Committee, the method adopted by my right hon. Friend with regard to the previous Amendment is the better method. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that on the Report stage my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will bring forward something that will cover the substance of the Amendment, when he has had a further opportunity of considering the matter, if possible in co-operation with representatives of the local authorities. It seems to me that that would be a far more practical way of dealing with the matter.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: It is an extremely pleasant experience to have an Amendment accepted, but nevertheless, I hope the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) will not be so intoxicated by that pleasure as to be unwilling to surrender it when it is found to have been an unwise concession. As for the Lord Privy Seal, he must be aware that it is not too late for him to withdraw his acceptance of the Amendment and to accept the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I would point out that in this case it is quite impossible for the hon. Member for Norwood to give effect to the whole of his intentions, because, however free from criticism the first of these two Amendments is, the second cannot possibly be accepted without considerable amendment of its wording. The two Amendments have to be taken together, and the Amendment which seeks to amend Clause 12 clearly entitles a business man to ask the local authority to provide shelters. Obviously, that request would have to be supported by some sanctions and conditions, or

clearly the local authority would be entitled to decline the request. There are also various other matters to be considered.
The hon. Member for Norwood challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams)to suggest an alternative. Everybody knows that hon. Members on this side would have preferred a system under which the State would have taken the responsibility for the provision of the whole of these shelters, but it has been considered by hon. Members opposite, and the Ministers whose policy they support, that that is not a practical proposition, and that there must be some decentralisation in the provision of shelters. I am not sure there is not a good deal to be said for that, but if we are now going to reverse the policy to a large extent, without more consideration than it has been possible to give in two or three minutes, then I venture to say that we shall get ourselves into serious difficulties. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal will take the prudent course in this case and tell his supporter that he would like to have further time to consider the matter.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Mabane: I was glad to hear the Lord Privy Seal say that he accepted the Amendment, and equally, I saw the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), but before my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) considers withdrawing his Amendment, I should like to know where we are. I gather that the point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, and by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), was that there is general agreement with the principle of the Amendment. The speech made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) seems to throw some doubt on that.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I point out that I was only answering the challenge made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys)? We are prepared, having been obliged to accept the method of dealing with this situation that was pressed upon us by the Government, to accept the consequence which is embodied in this Bill.

Mr. Mabane: In that case I shall be happy to see my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) withdraw the Amendment, as it is now quite clear that hon. Members opposite fully approve of the principle both of this Amendment and the consequential Amendment to Clause 12. I see no objection to the course that has been proposed.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: In these circumstances, I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I have had the express assurance of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal—and he will correct me if 1 am wrong—that he accepts the Amendment, except for possible small verbal alterations to meet the requirements of Parliamentary counsel. However, before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to refer to the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) in particular, while objecting to the proposal contained in the Amendment on the grounds that the local authorities are over-burdened— as did other hon. Members opposite— suggested as an alternative that the local authorities should provide communal shelters for the employés of factories of this kind. I fail to understand how this would in any way reduce the task of the local authorities. The burden on the local authorities would remain precisely the same. I listened carefully to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I did not hear a single suggestion for meeting this problem in any better way than the one which I have proposed. However, in view of the assurances given to me by the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.57 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman(Colonel Clifton Brown): The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest)—it is on the Paper as an Amendment to Clause 11, page 9, line 21—but I would ask the hon. Member whether this Amendment is necessary, since it seems to me to be covered by Clause 3, Sub-section (1, b)

6.58 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(3)if the whole or any part of a commercial building shall be designated by a

local authority for use as a public air-raid shelter or for use by the local authority in carrying out any of their Civil Defence functions there shall be set aside such provision of accommodation as shall enable the owner to provide air-raid shelter for the persons working or living in this commercial building.
Perhaps you will permit me to give an explanation with regard to this matter, Colonel Clifton Brown. This Amendment to Clause 11, page 9, line 21, which I requested you to permit me to move as an Amendment to Clause 2 is necessary in my view, despite the existence of Clause 3, Sub-section (1, b), which provides—
that the whole or any part of the premises is required for use as a private air-raid shelter for the persons in the premises or in the building of which they form part.
If an appeal against the designation of the premises were made under Clause 3, and were allowed under Sub-section (1, b), it would appear to prevent the use of part of the premises as an air-raid shelter for the occupants of a commercial building. The object of my Amendment is to permit part of a commercial building to be used for a purpose designated by the local authority, and another part, if necessary, to be used for providing shelter for those who are employed, or who live, in that building. I do not think that is covered by Clause 3(1, b).

7.1 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I thought I was going to hear something more in favour of this Amendment, because I do not think I have at present very much to answer. The Amendment seems to me unnecessary. In Clause 3 (1) any person who objects to the designation of his premises may appeal to the Minister against designation on the ground that the whole or any part of the premises is required to be used as a private air-raid shelter. If, on such an objection being raised by the owner or occupier of the premises, it appears that, while making full provision for the portion of the premises which may be required as a private air-raid shelter, there would remain a portion of the premises which could still be used for the purposes for which the local authority intended the designation of the premises, then it seems to me that could be brought to the notice of the Minister. The Minister would then have full power to give a decision which would ensure that the portion of the premises required as a private shelter should be left available to the occupier for


that purpose, and that the local authority should be free, if it thought fit, to go on with the adaptation of the remainder of the premises for their own purposes. It seems to me, therefore, that the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is met by Clause 3 in its present form.

Dr. Guest: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the object which I have in view—with which, I think, he agrees—is in fact carried out by Clause 3? I confess I am very doubtful.

Sir J. Anderson: I will see that the correctness of what I have just said, as to the interpretation which I think Clause 3 bears, is checked by my legal advisers, and I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman if I am told that there is any doubt on the point.

Dr. Guest: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.4 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out, "the whole or any part of a building," and to insert, any premises."
This is purely a drafting Amendment, designed to meet a case where part of a building may be occupied by a public utility undertaker and the remainder of the building may be otherwise occupied. As the Clause stands, the fact that a public utility undertaking has occupied part of a building would prevent the part with which they are not concerned at all being designated without the intervention of the appropriate Minister. This Amendment makes the position perfectly clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "is," and insert" are."
This is purely a matter of grammar.

Amendment agreed to.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "any," to insert" local authority or."
This has been put down at the request of the County Councils Association to deal with a problem which may arise in different parts of the country where a

local authority may have premises, to adopt the word now used by the right hon. Gentleman, in the area of another and a scheme-making authority. The kind of case that, I think, jumps to the eye is the case of a hospital, a mental hospital or some similar institution, situated outside the area of the authority that owns it and in the area of another local authority. It is clear that it is desirable that these private premises should not be designated, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to accept the Amendment. Virtually the premises are similar to those of a public utility undertaking, and there appears to be no good reason why there should be any differentiation between the two.

7.8 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I do not know whether it would be convenient to allow us to debate this and my next Amendment together, because they are for the addition of the same words and deal with the same point entirely. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said what the purpose is. Sub-section (5) provides for an exception to the previous part of the Clause in the case of buildings which are the property of public utility undertakings, but it has been properly pointed out that there may be in some cases premises which are the property of one authority and are situated in the area of another, and we think those buildings should be given the same consideration as public utility buildings. It is quite true that the case is not confined to mental hospitals only. There is a considerable number of authorities who, for the purpose of tuberculosis sanatoria, find it absolutely impossible to get a suitable site within their own area and have to go outside. There are institutions for the blind in the same position.

Dr. Guest: The same considerations arise in connection with the Metropolitan Borough Councils. I am not speaking for them, but I know they would like an Amendment in this sense, because it meets a real need in connection with borough council administration.

7.10 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: After recent experience I want to be a little careful, and not hastily to accept an innocent-looking Amendment. I thought that this Amendment was really not necessary, because it


had not occurred to me, when I was dealing with this Bill before its introduction, that we should have local authorities of one class proposing to enter upon the property of local authorities of another class against the will of those local authorities. If such a thing is expected to arise, then I think I ought perhaps to ask whether any hon. Member can give me any indication of what would be likely to be the views of the potential marauding local authorities. Perhaps their views are not represented here to-day, but if such local authorities do not arise, then I should think everything would proceed happily by agreement, and this Amendment: will be quite unnecessary. If there should occur an isolated case of ill-considered or improper action by a local authority, interfering with the premises of another local authority, the provisions of the Bill with regard to appeal, I suggest, provide a very ample remedy.
I have made these points, not just in order to be facetious, but because there is a practical difficulty, which is perhaps not at first sight apparent, in determining what for this purpose would be the appropriate Department. In the case of a public utility undertaking the appropriate Department is defined, I think, in Clause 73 by reference to the nature of the public utility concern. That is one point. I am not quite sure what suggestion the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would make on that. The other point I would like to put to him for his consideration is this: If the Committee accepts this Amendment, then in every case that arises a reference to a public department will be necessary before action is taken, even though the matter may be wholly agreed between the authorities concerned. That seems to me to be a practical difficulty.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I would never have accused a Scotsman of being facetious. The right hon. Gentleman need not defend himself from that charge in this House; it is the last thing we expect of him, and we have never been disappointed yet. I realise the strength of some of the points which he has made, and I will undertake that those at whose request this Amendment was put down shall consider it between now and the Report stage, in order to see if we can draft an Amendment, quite possibly in consultation with the right

hon. Gentleman who might be able to suggest something to deal with the point on which we apprehend difficulties. In view of the sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman and the practical points involved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.14 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "undertakers," to insert "for the purposes of their undertaking."
This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the exemption of the premises occupied by public utility undertakers is in respect of premises occupied by the undertaker for the purpose of the undertaking, as defined later in the Bill in the Interpretation Clause. These words may at first sight appear to be surplus age, but cases may arise in which this Amendment will be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 6, leave out "is" and insert "are"

In line 8, leave out "them" and insert "their undertaking."—[Sir J. Anderson]

CLAUSE 3—(Appeal from designation of premises.)

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "twenty-one" and to insert "fourteen."
I think the general comment upon this Bill when it was presented to the local authorities was that all the times mentioned in it appeared to be too long. We have been exhorted on several occasions by the right hon. Gentleman to regard time as being of the very essence of all our proceedings on this matter. Within the last few days he has issued a circular to local authorities urging them to give this work priority over all other work in which they are now engaged, and the local authorities share his view. Indeed their complaint against the Government is that it has taken the Government a very long time to arrive at the conclusion that this is the most important work which is now being


carried out co-operatively by the Government and the local authorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself at the recent conference, gathered that the local authorities were unanimously of the opinion that, generally speaking, right through the Bill there should be a speeding-up of the contemplated procedure.
In this case it is felt that 14 days will be sufficient time, after the designation of premises, to allow an appeal to be submitted to the appropriate Department. That period gives the occupier or owner sufficient time to get preliminary advice on the position. I hope that the Government will be able to meet the wishes of the local authorities in this respect. This is one of the few points on which I have known local authorities throughout England, Wales and Scotland to be agreed. There was not a dissentient voice on the question that there should be a general speeding-up of these arrangements. In view of that demonstration of unanimity, which took place before the Lord Privy Seal himself, I hope the Government will meet us.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the hon. Member has said, this view was held practically unanimously by the local authorities and as I think the Amendment would improve the Bill, I accept it on behalf of the Government.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: This Clause refers not merely to occupiers but also to persons who have any estate or interest in the premises concerned. It may be that persons who are not occupiers but who have some interest in the premises will not discover for some days that a building has been designated. The time available for appeal may have almost run out before they discover that designation has taken place. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that aspect of the matter.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Under Clause 60 the Minister may, by Order, extend the time for the bringing of an appeal.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I would like to be quite clear about the period which will be available after designation has been made and from what date the period will run. Supposing that the Amendment

limiting the time to 14 days is accepted will the 14 days operate from the date of the posting on the premises of the notice of designation and are we to take it that the notice will contain information to that effect so that the owner will have the benefit of a clear 14 days. I think that point ought to be made clear.

Mr. Morrison: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, after "satisfied," to insert:
after consulting the local authority by whom the premises were designated
As the Clause is now phrased, it would appear to be possible for the Minister to grant an appeal against designation without consulting the local authority. It is unlikely that such a case would arise but for the purpose of removing any doubt, I suggest that these words should be inserted. Probably they would only give legislative sanction to the procedure which would normally be followed, but I think it desirable that it should be understood that the views of the local authority will be considered by the Minister before he grants an appeal against any designation which they have made.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Committee will have every sympathy with the object of the hon. Member. He desires that it should be made explicit in the Bill that in this case the customary procedure of any Minister or any other person exercising a judicial function shall be observed and that both sides shall be heard. I ask the hon. Member on this occasion, however, not to press the Amendment, not because there is any difference between us as to the reasonableness of its object, but because I think it is unthinkable that a Minister, exercising a function of this kind, would not give a hearing to both sides. Unless he did so there would be no method by which he could inform himself on the merits of the case. I would refer again to Clause 60 under which rules may be made regulating the procedure in connection with these appeals and it will be seen that what is contemplated is a semi-judicial process of a perfectly proper and well-known character. Moreover, the word "consulting" is, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, a little infelicitous in this connection. It would suggest that the Minister was enjoined


after an appeal had been made to enter into some sort of confabulation with one side, and would give the impression, which I know is distant from the hon. Member's own mind, of a somewhat one sided consultation between the Minister and the authority. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept my assurance that the intention is to proceed by way of rules which will set down the proper procedure and under which both sides will have an adequate opportunity of stating their case to the Minister who will act judicially in the matter.

Sir J. Lamb: Are we to take it then that the Minister accepts the object of the Amendment and that it is only a question of carrying it out under the rules instead of putting it in the Bill? May we take what he has said as an undertaking that both sides will be heard?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly I give that undertaking. That has been our intention all along. There is no difference as to the intention of adopting the proper procedure in this matter but the word "consulting" has to my mind an objectionable connotation in this connection. There must be a judicial hearing of both sides.

Mr. Foot: Might not the point be met by a provision, either in the Bill or in the rules, to the effect that a person who gives notice of appeal should also give notice to the local authority concerned, within a certain time? Perhaps the Minister would consider that point.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic way in which he has considered the Amendment. I regard nothing as unthinkable in the case of the present Ministry. I can assure him that I have not nearly as high an opinion of the present Minister as he has of himself, but in regard to the use of the word "consultation" all that was in the minds of the drafters of the Amendment was the desirability of not having any words which would cause delay. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:

or that the date of designation shall be postponed to allow sufficient time for the provision of other shelters for persons displaced by designation.
This Amendment seeks to make certain that owners of premises who have provided shelters, perhaps even deep shelters, for their own employés, and who then find that a local authority wishes to designate the premises, including that special provision which they have made, shall not be held guilty of an offence as being without provision for their own employés when the premises have been taken by the local authority. This is an important point which should be considered by the Government and if the words which I propose are not appropriate I hope the Government will consider what provision is necessary in this respect. I have in mind certain premises the owners of which are anxious to make adequate provision for their employés. As far as we can gather from the pronouncements of the Minister, he has declared against deep shelters. Some employers may wish to provide such shelters in spite of that decision. A local authority may then require the whole of their premises, including the deep shelters, and in those circumstances the employers may be taxed with not having made separate provision for their workers. All we ask is that the Bill shall provide sufficient time for those employers to conform with the law and make their own provision thereafter for their own employés

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I see the object of the Amendment and I will gladly consider it, but I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the contingency which he has in mind is very remote. I gather, however, that the right hon. Gentleman is merely anxious to make certain that the point is considered. On the basis that it would give the Minister an extra power there would be, on general principles, no objection to the proposal, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow us between now and the Report stage to consider the matter to see whether any extra power is required.

Mr. Alexander: I shall be glad if the Minister will have some consultation about this point, because I do not think that what he has said quite meets the case. There are some cases in which deep shelters may be provided and the entrance


to them may be from a public place. You might find that this would actually attract, not only the local authority, but the Minister himself in certain circumstances, to designate the premises. We want to be sure that in such circumstances we get sufficient time thereafter to make separate provision.

Mr. Morrison: I will undertake to consider the point in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:
(4) Nothing in this Section applies to the premises mentioned in Sub-section (5) to the last preceding Section
The premises mentioned in Sub-section (5) of the previous Clause are premises of public utility undertakings, and it is provided in that Sub-section that the consent to be obtained there is that of the Minister of Transport or, as the case may be, of another Minister. It is called "the appropriate Minister," but if the Committee will refer to the definition Clause, they will see that for the purposes of public utility undertakings the Minister of Transport or another Minister, and not my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, is the appropriate Minister. The object of the Amendment is to prevent overlapping jurisdiction on the part of these two Ministers; otherwise we might have, under Clause 3, an appeal to one Minister from a decision which had already been approved by another Minister, and it is thought that such a proceeding would lead to overlapping and that it is better to exclude, by these words, the premises of public utility undertakings.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman would have been perfect but for the Amendment which has been introduced by his right hon. Friend this afternoon, where, in line 5, on page 3, after the word "undertakers," he has inserted" for the purposes of their undertaking." Let us suppose that the appeal is by a public utility undertaker on the ground that the premises to be designated are used by the public utility undertaking for the purposes of the undertaking, and that the local authority which has desig-

nated the premises contends that the premises in fact are not used for the purposes of the undertaking. Some public utility undertakers have many functions—some local authorities, for instance, are public utility undertakers—and there may be some part of the premises which is partly used for the public utility undertaking and partly for some other purpose of the local authority. All sorts of disputes at that point might arise. When an appeal takes place on that specific point, which has been introduced into the Clause this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman, to whom will the appeal lie? Will it be to the Minister of Transport, who is generally the appeal authority in cases involving most of these public utility undertakings, or will it be to the Minister? I think that something lather more elaborate than the Amendment now proposed should be devised by the Government to cover this point.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not think the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers should arise. The effect of the earlier Amendment which he mentioned is that if you have one building where the occupier is a public utility undertaking, but only one room is used for the purposes of the undertaking, that building is rot exempted under this Clause, in so far as it does not require to have the prior consent of the Minister of Transport before it can be designated for that part not used for the purposes of the undertaking. The hon. Member will notice that under Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 what is required, in the case of a public utility undertaking's premises, is the prior consent of the Minister of Transport or of some other Minister as the case may be. If there was a building only a part of which was occupied by the public utility undertaking for the purpose of the undertaking, and the remainder was used for some other purpose, and the whole building was designated, the position would be that the part occupied by the public utility undertaking for its own purposes could not be designated without the prior consent of the Minister, and as regards the remainder of the premises, the appeal against designation would lie to the Minister.

Mr. Ede: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped my point. The question is, where there is a dispute as to whether that part of the


premises is being used for the purposes of the undertaking—on that narrow point— to whom does the appeal lie?

Mr. Morrison: That is, surely, a question of fact to be determined by the tenancy of the building and the use to which the various rooms are put. I cannot conceive that there would be any difficulty in ascertaining, as a question of fact, whether or not a part of the building was used for the purposes of the undertaking. The decision of that question of fact would determine which Minister's consent was required.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I think this is a point of considerable substance. I can conceive, from a fairly wide experience 0f this sort of dual occupation of premises, of a case where you get an actual private user of a large part of premises of this character. Looking at it from the point of view of the wording of Clause 3 as it is now proposed to be amended by the Minister, that would cut out any of those private users of those premises from making an appeal to the Minister under Clause 3. Therefore, I am afraid that all that the right hon. Gentleman has said about what might happen and what would be the functions of the Minister of Transport leaves us rather cold. I think the Minister has yet to show that the right of appeal under the machinery of Clause 3 is still being properly conserved for those users other than the public utility undertaking where premises are jointly used.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: Did I understand the Minister to say that, in respect of one of the premises, there may be two different pieces of machinery—one where you would have to go to the Minister of Transport and another where the occupier would appeal to the Minister of Health? If that is the case, is it not possible that you could get two contradictory decisions in respect of exactly the same premises? Might I suggest that this is a matter which the Minister might look at again, to see whether the procedure cannot be simplified so that one authority shall decide whether in fact particular premises should or should not be designated, irrespective of how the premises are occupied?

7.39 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and to the two hon. Members opposite who have raised this matter, and I agree that it is one which will have to be examined. My own view remains, as I said, that certainly the intention of the Bill is, and as I believe the effect would be, that in so far as public utility premises are concerned, the consent of the Minister of Transport or the appropriate Minister would be required, but in so far as they are not, the right of appeal lies to the Minister and not to the Minister of Transport. However, I will look at it again in case there is any dubiety in the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.40 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: It appears to me obvious that certain difficulties are bound to arise over this question of appeal. I think we all know that when an appeal goes to the Minister, he is in fact an interested party, and as I see the position over this Civil Defence business, the Minister will be a very much interested party. I hold the view that appeals in this matter very vitally affect private individuals, public utility companies, and concerns of allsorts, and it is essential that they should feel that they will get a square deal. Where there is reasonable ground for an appeal, they should be able to make an appeal to some authority which will view all the circumstances and give them a just decision.
I cannot help feeling, having heard the discussion on this point, in which, I must say, I am largely in agreement with the hon. Members opposite, that it is worth considering whether the appeals should go, not to the Minister, but to some judicial body. The Minister says that under Clause 60 rules will be laid down as to how the appeals should be heard, but I think it would be better, not only for the Minister, but for the individual and the country, if the appeals went first to the Minister and then to a judge of the High Court or somewhere like that, where the whole case could be argued out without there being any possibility of bias on one side or the other. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider, between


now and the Report stage, whether it would not be better to make these appeals, not from the local authority to the Minister only, but to give authority for appealing to a completely impartial, judicial body.

CLAUSE 4.—(Execution of works.)

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out "it appears to the local authority," and to insert:
the local authority satisfies the Minister that it is.
I put this Amendment on the Paper in order to raise a point of some importance. We are not in a state of emergency, but, on the other hand, we are not in a state of complete peace, and we find, as other free people have found before us, that in such circumstances we have to submit to curtailments of our usual liberties in various ways. I think there is very general public agreement that that is necessary and wise, but if there is to be public support for any particular form of curtailment, it is necessary that it should be shown, first, that the particular curtailment is necessary and, secondly, that it is fair as between different individuals; in other words, that it is being applied with some uniformity of practice. The powers under Part 11 of this Bill are entrusted to a great number of different local authorities, and they are wide powers. We have just dealt with the question of designation, and we now come to an even more serious matter, the question of a right to alter premises. It is proposed that these local authorities shall have power, having designated private property, to alter that property, even although the owner of the property objects to the alteration proposed. In normal circumstances in such a case there would be a provision for appeal to some form of judicial tribunal, but in present circumstances, and having regard to the subject-matter of this Bill, I do not feel that a proposal of that kind would commend itself to the House on the ground that it would be liable to cause great delay.
I suggest therefore as a substitute what is, in effect, an appeal to the Minister. Where there are a great number of local

authorities exercising these powers there will not be uniformity of practice, or anything approaching it, if they are left to exercise their powers uncontrolled. It has been pointed out by several hon. Members opposite that already some local authorities are in grave difficulty because they cannot find sufficient competent technical staff to cope with the pressure of their new duties. One can imagine that in some districts a local authority, faced with this difficulty, might appoint somebody who was not really competent for the job and who might make a number of suggestions for the alteration of premises which would not be really suitable. The unfortunate owner or occupier would have no appeal. It may be said that it is not a great safeguard to bring the Minister in, but it would ensure a certain standard of uniformity in these matters. It might even be a good thing so far as the local authority is concerned, because if the Minister were to disagree with them about certain proposals, it might be instructive to them as to the methods that were being pursued in other localities. As the Clause stands, it is a little dangerous. I am not particularly wedded to the form of words of the Amendment; indeed, I had some little difficulty in deciding which part of the Bill to amend in order to achieve my purpose, but I think I have said enough to show the difficulty that I see. I shall be glad if the Minister can give some hope that the point will be considered between now and Report to see whether some words can be inserted to achieve the purpose I have endeavoured to outline.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. If he does I can see the work of the local authorities in getting on with this necessary part of their duties being impeded during the next month, six weeks or two months to a degree that would be well nigh intolerable. One does not know to what timetable we are working with regard to the execution of these works. I heard on the wireless on Sunday that Sir Abe Bailey thinks the catastrophe is coming in June. I do not know what grounds he has for thinking that he has any special information, but I have heard other people at least as incompetent to express an opinion suggest a far earlier date. A good many people seem to think that a few remarks


to be offered next Friday may give a considerable indication as to when we may expect trouble, if, in fact, it is coming at all. If in every case where a local authority cannot get agreement with regard to the execution of these works they have to submit their case to the Minister, and he has to deliberate on it and give a decision, it may be a considerable time before the local authorities will be able to get on with this part of their work. I am sure that this Amendment would be regarded by them as a serious impediment to the due discharge of their functions.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) who moved the Amendment referred again to the question of appeal and stressed the point made earlier by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). Anything that falls from my hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, be considered, but the Committee must bring itself face to face with the necessity of speed of decision in this matter. We are dealing with vital national necessity, and however much we may feel disposed to hesitate about this unwelcome intrusion into private property, we must face the necessity of getting on with this vital work. For that reason, although I will consider what my hon. and gallant Friend said, I cannot hold out much hope of coming to a different decision from that already in the Bill. With regard to the Amendment, not only would it impose a great strain upon local authorities, who would not be able to get on with their work until they had received ministerial approval, but it would create a heavy and intolerable burden upon my right hon. Friend if his functions were to be enlarged into the scrutiny and examination of every possible plan of work for creating shelters, and as a result, we should never get on at all. Much as I appreciate the motives of my hon. Friend in trying to secure that no injustice is done, I must ask the Committee to agree with me that we cannot afford to have a provision of a dilatory character put in the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: Having regard to the Minister's observations, I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.53 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert" seven."
The object of this Amendment is to speed up proceedings. I do not think it is covered by the Amendment which follows in the name of the Lord Privy Seal—in line 15, at the end, to add:
but any such notice may be given at any time after the designation of the premises.
That seems to deal with a different point. Seven days notice should be better than 14 for this purpose, and as the Minister has accepted another Amendment in the same sense I hope he will be able to accept this one.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think that seven days is too short for this purpose and the Committee will be well advised to leave 14 as it is in the text. We must be careful to have no provisions which unduly delay progress. At the same time there is a certain class of case where more hurry means less speed in the long run. If there is too short a time for the notice to be given there may be appeals and delays which would not have occurred had there been a proper period for scrutiny. The Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend which follows goes some way to meet the hon. Member's point because it will secure that the 14 days notice to be given by a local authority shall be concurrent with the period allowed for appeal. That is the point the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) put to me just now. It will secure that and also secure that there will be no delay, and at the same time avoid the opportunity for further delay and muddle at a later stage.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I wonder whether there is not some slight misapprehension, for I cannot find in Clause 4 that there is any right of appeal. The Clause refers to premises which have already been designated and in which every right of appeal has already been exhausted. All that the Clause deals with is the power of the local authority in the case of premises already designated to adapt them. There can be no appeal in regard to that and it seems unreasonable to say that where everything has been done that needs to be done and the local authority is in control, with every right of appeal


exhausted, they need wait so long as 14 days before proceeding to adapt the premises.

Mr. Fleming: The procedure is not as simple as the hon. Member seems to think. I have gone through the process. I have been visited by an official who investigated my cellarage. He pointed out that I had accommodation for something like 100 people but that certain structural alterations would have to be made. He gave me to understand that I should first have to be registered, but what the next move is I do not know. If the Amendment is adopted, and I am on holiday when the notice is served, I may find on my return that half the cellar wall has been taken down. Fourteen days is not too long notice to give.

Mr. Silkin: I would like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silver-man). The notice comes into operation after 14 days have expired and during that period the owner can appeal. In effect, therefore, he will have 14 days during which he can appeal plus another seven days if the Amendment is accepted, making 21 in all. In all the circumstances that is not an unreasonable notice. It is a minimum. In the majority of cases the notice will be much longer.

Mr. Denville: Will the Minister say what is meant by "service"? Does it mean service on the premises or service on the owner?

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It may help us to come to a decision if we can be told exactly when designation takes place. Does it take place when the local authority serves the notice in the way described in Clause 2 by posting it on the premises and seeing that it reaches every person who has an interest in the premises, or does it come into effect after 14 days have expired during which the appeal can take place and the Minister has given his decision? I think it has been assumed that the premises are, in fact, designated by the local authority and that it is from that moment all periods of time begin to run. If that be so, this provision might give an additional 14 days, making a total of 28 days. I hope the Minister may be able to devise some form of words under which a local authority, having givens

their notice, may be able to enter upon the premises as soon as possible after the expiry of the 14 days within which an appeal can be lodged.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I was asked just now about the service of documents and notice. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) will find his question answered in Clause 65, which provides a number of alternative methods for appropriate cases. With regard 10 the other points raised, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) says, the process of time must start to run from the designation of the building by the local authority. As soon as there has been designation under the method laid down in Clause 2, the time allowed for appeal against that designation begins to run. Clause 3 deals with appeals, and then comes Clause 4, dealing with the later stage, when the premises have been designated and the local authority wishes to carry matters a stage further by executing the work. Under paragraph(b)s of Clause 4 they have to give notice before they enter upon any premises, and that notice of intention to enter is 14 days notice and is the subject of the present Amendment which seeks to make it seven days. Paragraph(a)says that the local authority shall not, except by agreement, begin any works until the period has expired for appealing to the Minister against the designation. If that is read in conjunction with an Amendment which I hope to move in a moment, it will be seen that we have met what was the desire of the associations of local authorities, and that is that the time of the appeal should be reduced to 14 days and that the notice given by a local authority under paragraph (b)s should run concurrently with the period allowed for appeal against the designation. We are giving effect to that arrangement, and I hope that it will be considered that it is the best way out of the difficulty. It avoids the danger of the notice going astray and also of disputes—if not in the technical sense—about the work arising later, and it meets the arrangement with the association of local authorities.

Dr. Guest: Is it possible to say that premises have been designated until the time allowed for appeal against their designation has elapsed? If you can designate and give notice to enter at the


same time it looks as if the designation was, in effect, a compulsory designation, against which no appeal could avail. If there is a real right of appeal against designation, surely designation does not take effect until after the lapse of the time allowed for appeal, in which case there is the possibility, if this Amendment is not accepted, that the total period may be 28 days, and I want to reduce it to 21 days.

Mr. Morrison: In a sense it is true to say that the designation is not final until the period allowed for appeal has elapsed and the appeal has been decided against the appellant or the right has run out, but the trouble is that designation does take place from the moment when the appropriate notice is served on the Bill. It takes place then, though it may be appealed against, and what we are attempting to do under the next Amendment is to secure that the 14 days notice which we are now considering, and which the hon. Member wishes to reduce, shall be concurrent with the 14 days allowed for appeal against designation; that is to say, if they designate and give their notice at the same time, the two periods of 14 days run together. If there is an appeal against it of course they cannot enter, because if the work were completed and then the appeal succeeded the work would be thrown away; but otherwise it will be possible to get on with the greatest speed.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be wrong in his interpretation. The two periods cannot run concurrently. As the Clause was originally drawn it provided for 21 days within which the owner might appeal, and then 14 days notice had to be given before the local authority might enter into possession. Therefore, if his interpretation were right, as the Clause was originally drawn the local authority could have entered into possession and begun their alterations to the premises before the time for appeal had expired, and I am sure that that was never intended. The two periods cannot, therefore, run concurrently but must run consecutively.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: May I put the matter in this way? Obviously the local authority would have no right to serve the 14 days notice provided for in this Clause unlesss

the premises had been designated. The Clause says:
Where it appears to the local authority-expedient for the purpose of making designated premises suitable.
Supposing an owner or occupier wanted to be awkward, and supposing notice to start works were served upon him after the local authority had designated his premises and after he had given notice of appeal but before that appeal had been determined—in such circumstances is it conceivable that any court would hold that the premises were really designated premises? I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's much greater experience in these matters, but I should have thought that would be open to very considerable doubt. I should think that a court would hold that unless the local authority were in a position to prove that at the date when they served the notice to enter the premises were designated premises in the full sense the notice would be invalid, and it would seem to follow that the two periods cannot run concurrently unless words more appropriate than these and those of the later Amendment are chosen.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps the difficulty in following this point arises from the fact that in order to reply to the hon. Member I mentioned the Amendment which follows this and which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend. If the Committee will look at it they will see that at the end of line 15, on page 4, it is proposed to add the words:
but any such notice may be given at any time after the designation of the premises.

Mr. Silverman: But what is "the designation"?

Mr. Morrison: In order to find out what is the designation of premises we have to turn to Clause 2, where it says that the premises are designated by the local authority posting in the building a notice declaring that that building or part of it may be required for use for public purposes of Civil Defence. As soon as that has been done, and while the 14 days allowed for appeal are running, the notice which we are now considering, that is, the intention to undertake works, can be given—at once, at the same time. They can put up the notice of designation with one hand and send the notice to execute works with the other, and the times run concurrently from that moment, so that


we must have the same period for this notice, 14 days, as we have for the notice of appeal against designation, and it is for that reason that the Amendment is not desirable.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I cannot speak for the Metropolitan boroughs, but I do know that the remaining local authorities in the country were willing to accept the Amendment in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, because it would appear that Clause 4 presupposes agreement as the normal course of things—

Mr. Morrison: Yes.

Mr. Ede: —and what we are anxious to be protected against is the man who says "I am going to appeal, and, no matter if you succeed, I am jolly well going to do nothing." One does meet with such cantankerous people, even in affairs of such vital importance as national defence, and we want to be certain that in such cases we shall not have to wait 28 days before we can get on with the job. As I understand things, under Clause 2 the premises are designated. An effort is made to reach agreement, and it is to be assumed that, generally speaking, the owner or occupier will desire to do any works himself, because he will then have more control over the workmen than if the local authority do them, but where he cannot do the work—perhaps he is not in a position financially to do it—or will not do the work, it is desirable that the local authority should be able to step in at the earliest possible moment. What we were anxious to secure was that the 14 days notice should run during the period of time allowed for an appeal in cases where we were going to meet with contumacious opposition on the part of the owner.

8.14 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give me some assurance that the legal obligations in this matter will be carefully looked into. I am not a lawyer, and I feel a doubt as to the exact meaning of the wording suggested, which does seem a difficult wording. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, and I understand that he is—I attach great importance also to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps I could refer to this subject when I move the next Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, at the end, to add:
but any such notice may be given at any time after the designation of the premises.
The effect of the Amendment is to make sure that there will not be two periods of 14 days each in which someone who wishes to obstruct shall hold up a local authority anxious to get on with this work. As soon as designation takes place notice to execute the work can be given, and the periods will run concurrently. In reply to what was said a moment ago by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), I would repeat that I think this Amendment meets the case that has been put up. He can certainly be assured that it does so from the legal point of view.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.17 p.m.

Sir A. Southby: As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said, no appeal is provided by this Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that nothing must be done to impede local authorities from getting on with this work, which is of essential national importance, but I visualise that cases might arise in which there would be dispute about the way in which work had to be carried out and in which there should be some form of appeal. Judicial appeal is not necessarily slower than appeal to the Minister. In passing, I want to thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy of his reply just now, but since special circumstances require special arrangements, I suggest that it might be found advisable to set up some form of legal commissions in various areas throughout the country to deal promptly and expeditiously with cases that may arise. I suggest that such commissions would avoid the horribly cumbrous and dilatory appeal to the Minister and the still more cumbrous and dilatory appeal to the High Court.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I raised the point a little while ago as to when premises were designated, and it is only fair that I should say that, upon reconsideration, I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman was right. I do not know whether the point has occurred to him, but perhaps he will look at Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, which states:
A building or part of a building where a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section has been posted and has not been withdrawn is in this Act referred to as 'designated premises' and references in this Act to the designation of premises shall be construed accordingly.
Clause 3 rather confirms the impression that, if the Minister is satisfied and allows an appeal, the effect of so doing is to cause the order for designation to cease.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is no doubt of that. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend I shall be glad to consider, between now and the Report stage, what he has said. It is expected that the majority of the work executed shall be done by mutual consent between local authorities and persons concerned. Having regard to the object of the work and to the experience likely to be in possession of the local authority, I should imagine that any private individual would be very glad to have the assistance of the local authority.

CLAUSE 5.—(Designated premises to remain unaltered.)

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to move, to leave out lines 35 to 39.
The words which I propose to leave out are the proviso.
that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this Section in relation to any designated premises if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the premises were designated premises.
I hesitate to suggest that any person could prove ignorance of such a matter in justification of breaking the law. It is hardly likely that any person whose premises were designated would be unaware of the fact. There is, however, the point that the premises designated might change hands and that, later, some other person might plead ignorance of the premises

being, so to speak, entailed. 1 am advised that in Scotland such premises as are designated feature in the register of the district, and because of that fact no person could gain possession of such premises without a knowledge of the fact.

8.22 p.m.

Dr. Guest: An Amendment which I have on the Paper relates to line 37 and I was proposing to move to leave out the words:
and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting
The words in the Clause ought to be altered to give them greater precision, and I should be prepared to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend; but if it is not accepted, I suggest that the words mentioned by me should be left out.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Committee will appreciate that we are here creating a new offence, and that is a proceeding to be entered upon with the utmost caution. The chance of anyone being able to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable ground for suspecting that premises were designated is extremely remote. As the Mover of the Amendment has said, such designation will be registered in Scotland as a charge, and in England it is a legal rent charge, and what has happened to the property will be within the knowledge of the parties. It will not be easy for anyone to prove that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the premises were designated.
On the other hand, these words are put in out of an abundance of carefulness—perhaps too much—in case future experience in this new ground upon which we are venturing might throw up a case in which injustice would be done. I am not prepared to stretch my imagination to say how that position might arise. I have thought of a number of cases that might occur, but my general conclusion is that it is rather a remote possibility. Nevertheless, in a new realm like this, I would urge upon the Committee the desirability of leaving in these words in case they might be useful to prevent the penalties of the Statute from falling on some quite innocent person.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If we suppose the case of a landlord and tenant, the landlord having received notice and the


tenant being without notice, would not some collusion be possible? If these words remain, the landlord, knowing that the tenant was ignorant, might deliberately withhold notice of designation from the tenant, and the tenant might then proceed to do the things which ought not to be done and neither the landlord nor the tenant would be liable under the Section. If, on the other hand, these words were not there the landlord would be under an obligation to inform the tenant, and, unless there is in some other part of the Bill some provision that the landlord in such circumstances must give information to the tenant, I confess I see a danger of collusion—or perhaps it is not quite correct to call it collusion, but of some action by the landlord in the hope that the tenant would do what he could not do himself and would be free from blame because he would be ignorant of the facts of the case.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that very pertinent question of my right hon. Friend, may I remind him that he made his plea in favour of retaining these words lest some innocent person might be haled before the court and subjected to a penalty if through sheer ignorance he committed the offence. With the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Scottish courts he will agree that they are not unreasonable, and that in such a case the person's ignorance would be taken into account. I am quite certain that no burdensome penalty would be placed upon someone who erred in ignorance. Surely that is a good argument in favour of taking out this part of the Clause and assuming that fair play and reasonable justice would be done to anyone who acted in ignorance.

Sir R. Tasker: It seems to me that the Clause is very far-reaching. I take it that the term "designated premises" means only that portion of the building which has been altered and adapted for the purposes of the Act, but the wording here would mean that, if some portion of the premises had been altered and become designated, any alteration to any other part of the building would thereby be prohibited.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked us to imagine the possible results of some collusive action between a landlord and a tenant by which the former, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, could throw a mantle of judicial ignorance over some act of the latter so that both might claim the benefit of this proviso and escape. As I said before, I think that that is a very remote case. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that not only will the owner and those who manage his affairs be kept informed by the registers both in England and Scotland, but a notice is to be posted by the local authority on the premises themselves, and the chances of a tenant being able to evade responsibility for an alteration of designated premises because he did not know anything about the designation, when there was a notice staring him in the face and when there were all the concomitant goings and comings of the inspectorate to look at the building, must be very small.
As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), I, like him, have full confidence in the justice with which the laws of this country are administered by the court, but, if a Statute lays down a statutory penalty which applies if certain things should happen, it is often not the case that ignorance or unwittingness is any defence at all unless the Statute contains words such as these. The judges have to carry out the Statute as it is, and if they are satisfied on unimpeachable evidence that certain premises are designated, and that they have been altered without any reference to the local authority, then by the plain words of the Statute they are bound to convict unless we in this Committee leave in such saving words as these to enable the courts to exercise precisely that sense of fair play which applies under the ordinary common law. I ask the Committee to accept this view. I say again that the chance of anyone, whether tenant or owner, being able to prove that he had no reasonable means of knowing that the building was designated, is extremely remote, and I cannot easily imagine conditions in which it would happen, but, in order that we may be abundantly sure that no innocent person will be subjected to a penalty, I ask the Committee to leave.


in these words. They can do no harm to the Bill, and may in an odd case prevent injustice being done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. Tasker: May I put my question again?

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry I omitted to deal with my hon. Friend's question. The asnwer to it will be found in Sub-section (4) of Clause 2.

CLAUSE 6.—(Compensation where works are executed.)

8.33 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out the second "the," and to insert "compensation for any."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words we desire to insert are simply to bring the Clause into line with Clause 15, where, in line 12 on page 13, the word "compensation" is used; and also—and this is even more important—to make it quite clear that the machinery of Clause 57, which deals expressly with compensation, is brought into operation. It was thought, on further examination, that a Clause drafted, as this Clause is, with a reference to damage and not to compensation for damage, might be misconstrued.

Amendment agreed to.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, after "land," to insert "or otherwise."
The basis of computation of compensation in Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 includes only damage sustained by reason of any interference with the use of the premises, building or land during the execution of the work; but there are many other grounds on which the occupier of premises, buildings or lands shall be entitled to recover compensation besides that of simple interference. Damage, for example, may be done, while the work is being carried on, to plant or even to the fabric of the building. All these things should be taken into consideration when the question of compensation is being considered.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: I would like to put a question to the Lord Privy Seal about the word "preceding" in the Clause. As I understand, the question of compensation here relates only to the preceding Clauses of the Bill, and, under Part IV of the Bill, to Clause 21.

The Chairman: I think that might arise on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but not on this Amendment.

Mr. De Chair: The only provision in this Bill for compensation arises here in respect of compensation under the provisions of the Act preceding this Clause.

The Chairman: Perhaps: but it does not quite arise on the specific Amendment which is before us now.

8.37 p.m.

Sir R. Tasker: The insertion of the words "or otherwise" will not entitle persons to compensation for any damage which is done. I am thinking of my own property. My basement is going to be used by anyone in an emergency. If people emerge through the window and damage is done, there is no compensation for the loss of drawings, contracts and so on. This Clause applies only to buildings or land, not the contents of buildings.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: If these two words are added, will it not entirely change the character of this Clause? We shall be introducing something which will enable claims to be made on the ground of loss of property, inability to conduct business, and a thousand and one things which clever lawyers will bring forward for compensation purposes. Is the matter not very fully covered by the provision that a person shall be compensated for any damage
sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building of land. …"?

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to ask a question on the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker). As I read this Clause, it provides for compensation only for damage caused during the execution of the works. It will have nothing to do with damage caused to the premises after a state of emergency has been declared and when persons other than the usual


users of the premises will have the right of access to the premises. I hope it will be made quite clear that this Sub-section is entirely confined to the time during which the works are being executed and has no relation at all to any rights which may arise or any claim which may be made on the owner under any Defence of the Realm Act.

8.40 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is quite right. This Sub-section deals only with what happens in the execution of works on designated premises. It has nothing to do with what might happen in an emergency. That will have to be provided for elsewhere. In regard to the Amendment, the position is this: Clause 4 gives certain powers to the local authority in regard to the execution of works in designated premises. It does not give power to go beyond what is specified in that Clause. That is the significance of the word "preceding" in Clause 6, Subsection (1). In the view of the Government, the provision with regard to compensation is rightly limited to damage sustained by reason of the doing of that which this Bill will authorise local authorities to do. It provides for the payment of compensation for damage
sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building or land during the execution of the works.
In the opinion of the Government, as they are advised, these words are sufficiently wide to cover any ground of compensation under the Clause.

Mr. Fleming: In view of the expression of opinion of my right hon. Friend and his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, after "shall," to insert," by way of compensation."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that if the occupier can prove that the premises, building or land, had a value to him in excess of the annual value, having regard either to the nature of

his business or to any other specific circumstances, such sums shall be calculated with reference to the diminution of the special value to the occupier and not merely to the diminution of the annual value.
The compensation payable, according to Sub-section (2), is based on the annual value. The annual value, according to Clause 73, has the usual meaning:
in relation to any premises, the rent at which it is estimated that the premises might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay the usual tenant's rates and taxes and "…
There are special circumstances in which many buildings, particularly commercial buildings, have a special value for the owners, and that special value would be negligible if the building were put in the market. We have, unfortunately, many examples in Lancashire. Take the case of a cotton mill, specially equipped for weaving. If that is put into the open market, its value is almost negligible. All that I am asking is that, under this scheme of Civil Defence, instead of the annual value what should be taken into consideration is the special value to the occupier or owners as the case may be.

8.45 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. The ground of the Amendment, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, is, if I understood him aright, that annual value may not in some cases be an adequate criterion for the purpose of assessing compensation in all cases. I am prepared to admit that there might be circumstances in which that argument would be entitled to some weight, but what are we to substitute for annual value? We ought to have a definite criterion capable of being interpreted by the courts, and "special value" seems to the Government to be a very vague term indeed. Our view is that, having regard to the necessity for expedition in handling these Civil Defence problems, to introduce words which would open the door to a great variety of rather vague claims—and who would not be in a position to claim with some show of reason, if these words were inserted, that his premises had a special value—would really run counter to the general purpose of this Clause. Therefore, as I have said, I cannot accept the Amendment.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, as I anticipate it will


be, I wish to dot the i's and cross the t's of what the Lord Privy Seal has said. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has his name down to this Amendment, and he is consequently asking for a reduction of local rates to local authorities. Here is an Amendment which is deliberately designed and calls upon local authorities to pay more compensation than otherwise would be the case. Surely it is rather a brazen doctrine when a man is paying rates—there may be exceptional cases—on a rateable or annual value, which, presumably, he has had a part in fixing or acquiescing in.

Mr. Fleming: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that such a man is on the assessment committee?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, any occupier, if he objects to a proposed assessment, can appeal against it and if he does not, he acquiesces in it, and the interest of the occupier, as a ratepayer, is to keep the annual value as low as he can This Amendment says, "By all means let him have his annual value on which he pays rates as low as possible, but if there is any compensation to be paid to unfortunate ratepayers, then let the value of the property be as high as possible." It is all in accordance with the views of the traditional kind of people like the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), that this Amendment should be made. It says, "When there is anything to be paid out to the local authorities, then let as little as possible be paid from any capitalist source, and let us, therefore, oppose any rating system to that end," but if there is anything to be got out of the local authority by private persons there are always Members on the Tory side of this House who are anxious to get as big a draw as they can from the pockets of the ratepayers of this country.

Mr. Fleming: In view of the remarks of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No!

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I do not propose to select the Amendment—in page 5, line 32, after "occupier," insert" or where there

is no occupier, the owner"—and I call the next Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage).

8.51 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, after "restore," to insert, "as far as practicable."

The Chairman: It was only in deference to the fact that I did not understand quite what was in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in that I agreed to call this Amendment in order to enable him to explain the meaning or effect of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I shall be very glad to do my best to explain the Amendment. If the Amendment were to be accepted it would mean that a local authority would not have to put the house and the land adjoining it, if certain works were carried out, into exactly the same condition as before, but would only have to do as much as was practicable. It is extraordinarily difficult and extremely expensive to replace buildings and put land into exactly the same condition as before, and especially is it so with regard to land. I have been asked by the Urban District Council Association to move this Amendment, as they consider it to be extraordinarily important. If these words are not inserted, it will possibly involve them in considerable and unnecessary expense. I hope that with this explanation I may be able to develop my argument.
I will give an illustration to the Lord Privy Seal of what happened during the last War in regard to land and buildings near Salisbury Plain which the Government took over, and which, by the terms of their lease, they had to put back in exactly the same state in which they found them, because of the absence of the words "as far as practicable" The land was cut up by tanks, buildings were in some cases partly demolished, the ground was disturbed by shells, and in order to hand over the land as agricultural land is cost something like £60,000, which was far more than the land itself was worth. Local authorities, having these previous difficulties in view, consider that these words should be inserted in order to cover that eventuality. The owners would be sufficiently covered if the land and buildings were put into their original state" as


far as practicable." It could not be insisted that every detail should be left exactly as it was before. With the acceptance of this reasonable Amendment, the matter would not prove costly to local authorities, and on the whole it would be satisfactory to owners of property.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will know that not only the municipal corporations, but the Urban District Councils Association are also in support of the Amendment. I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment, which is very reasonable, and I hope, without wasting time on it, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is going to accept it.

8.55 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The last thing that I want to do is to waste the time of the Committee, but I want to exercise reasonable caution. The purpose of this part of the Bill, dealing with the withdrawal of designation, is to give an option to the local authority either to restore the premises or, if they do not restore the premises, to leave them as they are, and pay compensation. If that option is to be presented to the local authority, it seems to me that in fairness to the owner it should be a clear alternative, either to restore, or leave things as they are and pay compensation. The effect of qualifying the words in the first part of the option that concerns restoration by adding the words "as far as practicable" might be—;I do not say the cases will be frequent, but they may arise—;that the local authority, finding it impracticable to restore the premises to anything like their original condition, would do some work on them and then say; "We have carried out the requirements of the Act; we have repaired the premises as far as practicable, and now it is finished and you have no claim for compensation." That would not be altogether fair. If we leave the Clause as it stands the local authority will be in a position to make up their minds whether substantial restoration is practicable, and no doubt in the vast majority of cases they will be able to come to some arrangement with the owner; but it seems to me that to insert the words of the Amendment would expose us to the criticism I have indicated.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I see the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman has put. On the other hand, he has not entirely met the difficulty raised by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, nor the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). There may be an unreasonable local authority, and there are certainly unreasonable owners; they abound in great numbers. Suppose it is the case that a local authority can substantially restore the premises to their former use, that is to say, they can make such changes that the premises, although not quite the same as they were and, therefore, not fully restored, can nevertheless be effectively used for the purpose for which they were originally used or, at any rate, the user will not be much changed. Nevertheless, under this Clause the owner could say: "I do not agree with you, and, therefore, I require you to pay compensation" It may be in that case the unreasonable owner could mulct the local authority in substantial damages, which could have been avoided. On balance, although I see the point of the Lord Privy Seal, I think the Amendment is not unreasonable. I do not think there ought to be the onus on the local authority either completely to restore the premises to the state in which they were or, on the other hand, to pay compensation, because the words of the Sub-section are rather tight. The owner may
require the local authority to restore the premises, building or land to the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works.
There would be very few cases in which there could be restoration to "the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works." It might be that there would be practically none. Although the local authority could restore the premises for all practical purposes for the use for which they were required, and in regard to which there could be no reasonable complaint, an obdurate owner might force the local authority to pay compensation, and this might lead to considerable litigation and cost to the ratepayers. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member will press the Amendment, in the absence of the Lord Privy Seal being able to accept it.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I agree with the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). It seems to me that the local authority might be put in a position of extraordinary difficulty. Suppose in the first place they were required to adopt the first alternative and to restore the premises. As the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) pointed out, it might be in some cases almost impossible to restore them to the exact state in which they were before any of the works were carried out. Suppose the local authority carried out the restoration sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person but the owner, being an unreasonable person, says: "I am not satisfied; you have not restored the premises to the exact state in which they were before." He might then say: "I claim some form of compensation." The local authority might be put in the position of paying twice over. It would have done the work, for all practical purposes, of restoring the premises to the condition in which they were, and yet there might be some claim outstanding against it, but if the words of the Amendment, "as far as practicable," were put in, the case would be met. I think I am right in saying that the local authority would not itself be the last resort in deciding as to practicability, or being the judge in its own case. Therefore, there could not be any real hardship on the owner if the Amendment were accepted. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will reconsider the point.

9.2. p.m.

Mr. McEntee: May I draw attention to the words of the Clause:
The occupier of the premises, building or land in or on which the work was executed may at any time require the local authority to restore the premises," etc.
The local authority may execute work of restoration and, having executed it, may imagine that the thing is settled, and everybody else may consider it settled; but the words "at any time" appear to me to enable the owner of the premises, 12 months or two years later, or at any time, to say: "I am not satisfied with the way in which the work has been done, and therefore I call upon you to restore the premises or the land to the condition in which they would have been had it not been for the fact that you entered and carried out certain works."
I can imagine the case of a market gardener who had a number of greenhouses with tomatoes growing in them, half-grown, when the premises were taken over. The premises are later handed back to him but, according to this Clause, the owner of the premises would been titled to say: "Had you not entered upon my premises those tomatoes would have been fully grown, and therefore I shall make a claim on you" He might make a claim for the price that he would have got in the market for the tomatoes if they had become fully grown. There are so many other cases that one can imagine that it seems to me the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, and I was surprised the Lord Privy Seal was not willing to accept it. I hope he will reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.

9.4 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), I understand that he was not dealing with the point that arises here, but with the compensation for loss of user during the execution of the works. We are concerned here with what is to happen when the premises cease to be designated. The words, "may at any time," I should have thought, would operate to the advantage of the local authority, because as soon as the premises cease to be designated the periodical compensation ceases to be payable. If the owner of the premises is content to do without the periodical compensation and not to bother about the restoration of the premises, in that case the local authority is all the better off.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not that mean compensation?

Sir J. Anderson: Not necessarily. My point is that the Clause, as it is, does not put on the owner the obligation at once to make a demand on a local authority. It leaves the owner to decide whether or not to make any such demand. If he decides not to make it immediately it does not seem to me that the local authority is indemnified, and that we may leave the Clause as it stands. In regard to the main purpose of the matter, I quite see the force of the arguments which have been used, and while I still think that my argument is good, I should like, if possible, to meet the object of the


Amendment. I am prepared, if it is withdrawn, to make this offer: to consider between now and Report the introduction of words which will have this effect, that if a local authority restores the premises so far as it is practicable to restore them, and if then there is still some impairment of value, a claim will be considered for compensation for that impairment. If it is put in that form— it is a slight modification of the Amendment—I will certainly do my best to get a suitable form of words.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether in assessing claims for compensation some account ought not to be taken of any improvements which might have been effected in the premises. It may be that there will be some disadvantages, but there may also be some advantages. As I read the Clause, the arbitrator or valuer can only take into account the disadvantages to the former owner or occupier, and when the right hon. Gentleman is doing the reasonable thing which he now proposes to do, I hope he will consider whether improvements which may have been effected in the premises, the strengthening of them which may be a lasting improvement, ought not also to be taken into account when assessing the compensation to be paid.

Sir J. Anderson: I will certainly consider that point.

Lieut-Colonel Heneage: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his offer and I hope he will consult with the Urban District Councils Association, on whose be-half the Amendment was moved, in order to find a suitable form of words which will be agreeable to all parties. In view of what he has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, after "shall," insert "by way of compensation."—[Sir J. Anderson]

9.9 p.m.

Sir George Broadbridge: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, at the end, to add:
(4)Where, by reason of the execution aforesaid of any works the value of any premises, building, or land is impaired, the local authority shall, in case of failure to restore as specified in Sub-section (3) of this

Section, pay to the owner of such premises, building, or land a sum equal to the said depreciation in value.
There is no doubt that the intention of the Amendment could have been secured by inserting in Sub-section (3) the words "or owner" immediately after the word" occupier," but I think if it is moved in this way it makes the position a good deal clearer. The Amendment merely suggests that if the occupier of the premises is to be entitled to compensation from a local authority for any damage he has sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building or land, through the execution of the works, then the owner ought to be treated in the same way. After all, in most cases the damage will be of a more or less permanent character, and while the occupier of the premises will have received monetary compensation for any loss he has sustained, the owner will be left with damaged premises, and with nothing to make good his loss. It is, therefore, only equitable that both occupier and owner should be treated in the same manner.

9.13 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I fail to follow the purpose of the Amendment. It seems to me that the Clause, as it appears in the Bill, is sufficient to cover every contingency. I do not see that there is any exception to the rule which I have indicated, either that the property shall be restored to the condition in which it was before the works were executed or that the compensation which is provided for in the Clause should be payable. I do not know whether the hon. Member has overlooked anything in the interpretation Clause in regard to the definition of occupier or what the explanation is; but it seems to me that the whole matter is fully covered as the Clause stands. I thought that the purpose of the Amendment was to alter the general effect of the Clause by giving an option, whether the premises were to be restored or whether compensation was to be paid to the occupier and not to the local authority. I am inclined to think that it would have that effect, because it says that if the premises are not restored compensation shall be paid equal to the depreciation in value. If that were the effect of the Amendment, I should have to resist it, but on the explanation of the hon. Member I do not think the Amendment is necessary.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Foot: May I put a further question to the Lord Privy Seal? I do not support the Amendment because if it were passed a local authority might be liable twice over—to the occupier and to the owner. But I think we might have some explanation of the position of the owner. Under the interpretation Clause "occupier" does not include "owner"; there are two separate definitions. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out on the last Amendment, the occupier is not bound to exercise his rights under this Clause. In cases where the occupier and the owner are two different people, if the occupier does not exercise his rights and if the property does suffer some depreciation, which is not compensated for by the local authority concerned, what is to be the position of the owner? Is there anything in the Bill which enables him to compel the occupier to exercise his rights under this Clause? In what way is the owner covered?

9.16 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The point which the hon. Member has raised is a new one, but I suppose the answer is that the matter is covered by the words which were criticised a little time ago—"at any time" As long as the occupier is in possession, it is for him to judge whether ho will make a demand for the restoration of the premises, but presumably if the then occupier ceases to be in possession, anyone who is in the position of occupier may make a demand. The effect of the Clause is that it is left to the occupier to decide whether or not he will call upon the local authority to restore the premises. If he does so, the local authority may either restore them or decide to pay compensation. If it decides to pay compensation, the compensation has to be paid to
every person having any estate or interest in the premises.
That seems to me to be an equitable arrangement. In the light of the discussion that has taken place, it seems to me that the Clause is a carefully balanced one which we should do well to leave alone, but I will have the record of this discussion carefully examined, and if there should be any point on which, in the light of the advice available to me, it appears that something should be done, I will raise the matter again.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Foots: May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? The owner might not become the occupier—that is to say, he might not come into possession—until a very long time afterwards. Surely, it might put a local authority in considerable difficulty if, many years afterwards, it was suddenly required to restore premises to the position in which they had originally been. It seems to me that the position of the owner vis-à-viz the local authority has not been fully considered in this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: My right hon. Friend has referred to the owner and the occupier receiving compensation. As the Clause is worded, I am afraid it will not work out exactly in that way. It is quite possible that the occupier may receive compensation, and he may leave the premises, but his interest is entirely different from the interest of the owner. The occupier's interest is only a temporary one, but the owner's interest is a permanent one, and there may be permanent damage done to the property for which the Clause does not provide compensation.

Sir J. Anderson: I suggest that the Clause does provide compensation. It provides that when the occupier demands the restoration of the premises, compensation has to be paid not merely to the occupier, but to every person having any estate or interest in the premises, so that the interests of the owner are there safeguarded.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to carry a little further the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and my remarks also touch the point that was made just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. The occupier is the person who sets in motion the machinery of this Sub-section. If he does not do so, the local authority is not called upon to restore the property or to pay compensation to anybody under this Sub-section. There may be between the actual owner and the occupier any number of people who have interests in the premises. There may be someone who has a mortgage on the premises; there may be various persons who have taken leases one from the other—all of them coming between the owner and the occupier. Unless the Clause is amended in some way, it will


place the occupier in the position that at some point, when it may be necessary for him to bargain with one or all of these people, he will be able to say that, unless they allow him to have his way, he will not serve the necessary notice, and none of them will be able to get anything, whereas if they will carry out what he wants—which may be quite improper and unjust as between man and man—he will set the machinery in motion and all of them can get as much as they can out of the local authority. That is a position in which no man ought to be placed. Generally speaking, I am in favour of the tenant as against the landlord, but there are occasions when this Clause might put the tenant in such a position as would revolt against natural justice.
Although I do not think that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) is one that the right hon. Gentleman can accept, I suggest that the Sub-section needs to be reviewed. There were times when the City of London was the foremost defender of the liberties of the people of this country, but I am afraid that they have somewhat deteriorated in recent years, and we are bound now to view anything that comes from them with a feeling that they sheltered the five Members a very great many years ago. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider some Amendment of this Clause which will enable some people besides the occupier to set this machinery in motion. Further, I suggest that it is essential that there should be some time limit within which the notice can be given after the premises have ceased to be designated. I am afraid that in the case of the majority of premises, the first time at which notice can be given is somewhat remote. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman still holds the view, circulated to the Press only three or four weeks ago, that we are on the eve of a disarmament conference; personally, I am afraid we are some distance from that. However, it is clear that as the Clause is worded, a hundred years after the premises ceased to be designated it would be possible for the person who was the occupier to serve notice on the local authority. I hope that something will be done to make quite clear what limits are meant by the words "at any time."

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) very rightly said that the tenant's interests must be looked after, but the owner's interest cannot be looked after until the occupier has made a request to the local authority to restore the premises. If he does not make such a request the owner has no rights.

9.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is not the entire question one of the tenure on which the property is held? It seems to me that in the majority of cases, property of this kind would be held on a long lease, and in those circumstances the occupier would be bound by the terms of the lease to place the property, on relinquishing the lease, in a similar condition to that in which it was when he took it over. Let us consider a case where the property might have been very considerably altered on the orders of or by the local authority, for the purpose of converting the building into premises suitable for an air-raid shelter. Well, when the period of emergency no longer existed the occupier would have the option of having the premises restored to the condition they were in originally, or else he would be compensated. Now, if the property were restored to the condition it was in when he took the lease, the owner or the landlord would have no compensation whatever. If it were not restored and the occupier accepted compensation at the end of the lease, he would be bound to restore the property and hand it over to the owner in its original condition. There may possibly be cases, such as a very short lease, or the case of property held under the terms of an agreement, which would have to be considered, but in the majority of cases the interests both of the occupier and of the landlord are fully covered under the terms of this Clause.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: It may happen that when the premises are given up it will suit the occupier to have them in the condition in which they then are, and he may continue to occupy them in that condition for that reason. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has referred to the fact that if a lease exists, the owner at the end of the period of the lease will have the opportunity of compelling a tenant to restore the premises. But all premises are not


occupied on lease. Many occupiers are year-to-year tenants, but, although the tenancy is from year to year, it may go on for a great number of years. In circumstances like that, whereas it may suit the occupier to retain the premises in their then condition, when he gives up the premises it may easily be found that for the purposes of the owner the premises are very much deteriorated in value, and that he in fact wants them to be restored to their original condition. Surely the owner in such circumstances would have a grievance. I am not as a rule very much concerned by the lot of owners as against tenants, I think that, generally speaking, they have all the best of it, but there are undoubtedly cases in which an owner may be very hard hit in circumstances such as I have explained.

Sir R. Tasker: We are talking on the assumption that the lease is a lease between owner and tenant, but there are many variants of that position. It is no uncommon thing in the West Country to find leases for two or three lives, or property let on a fee farm rent. In the former case the occupier might be the first life, and the period when the property reverts to the owner might be remote.

Mr. R. Morgan: The compensation which is paid will be paid to the occupier. The doubt is as to whether the owner can recover. Perhaps a local authority would give compensation to an occupier without taking into consideration the owner's interest, and it seems to me that the local authority, before granting any compensation to an occupier, would have to examine the position in which the occupier found himself in relation to the owner. There, I think, the whole difficulty could be met. I do not know whether I am right in that assumption

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Poole: If I were affected by this Bill I should not be too happy about this Clause. There does seem to me to be a fundamental point here as affecting local authorities. It is extremely desirable that any claim that falls due for failure to restore buildings to their previous state should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment. But, as the Clause is drafted, this position may arise: An occupier may perhaps be satisfied with the extent of restoration of the building, or may not require any restoration of the

building because it may suit his own particular needs during the period of his tenancy. He may make no application to a local authority for money to be expended in restoration, but perhaps at the expiry of his tenancy 30, 40 or 50 years later, the local authority may be called upon to restore the property in accordance with this Clause, and the local authority is then faced, perhaps not only with the amount of the damage which it may have done to the property, but with the damage that will naturally have been caused by the lapse of time.
No local authority will know quite where it stands, or what is going to be the extent of its liabilities, or when it will see the end of all the claims which may fall upon it. The local authorities will have to be prepared all the time to budget for an expenditure on restoration of buildings which fall out of the hands of occupiers into the hands of owners, and to meet perhaps a secondary claim on the part of the owners for restoration, or perhaps the initial claim because the occupier has not thought it necessary to make any claim. It is desirable that some words should be put into the Clause to provide that claims be made as soon as the building is released from designation—a claim either from the occupier or the owner—in order that all these claims should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment.

The Chairman: I do not wish to check this Debate, but I think it is clear that hon. Members are getting rather outside the scope of this particular Amendment. If I allow this discussion to go on in the same way, I hope it will be on the understanding that this matter will not be further discussed on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison: Perhaps it might be for the general convenience of the Committee if we discussed Sub-section (3) in relation to this Amendment. But I have no feeling in the matter if it would be more acceptable to the Chair that we should discuss the question on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: I am wondering whether we could not just get rid of the Amendment. If we disposed of that, it is obvious that there would be a little more to be said on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir G. Broadbridge: Having listened to the explanation given in a most fair manner by the Lord Privy Seal, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.34 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: There are a number of points in relation to Sub-section (3) which, I think, the Lord Privy Seal ought to consider with great care before we get to the Report stage, and on which I am afraid he has not yet satisfied the Committee. There is this most important point which was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and subsequently followed up in relation to Sub-section (3), whereby it is provided that the occupier of the premises, building or land in or on which the works were executed may at any time require the local authority to restore the premises to the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works. This is an extraordinary provivision, and I feel that in the drafting of this Sub-section considerable carelessness was shown, or the Ministers concerned did not give proper direction as to what they wanted.
Under this provision it may be that a local authority will designate premises and that structural alterations will be made. A time comes when the local authority withdraws the designation. The premises cease to be designated premises. The owner makes no claim. Five years or 10 years may pass without a claim. In-deed, even 100 years or 200 years, as far as I can see, may pass, and there may be half-a-dozen occupiers in succession and any of those occupiers at any time may, if he wishes, make a claim against the local authority that the premises should be restored to the state in which they were when designation took place. I am not a lawyer, but that seems to be legally possible under this provision, and I submit that it is utterly preposterous. It means that at any time any occupier, even though he were not the occupier when the designation or the withdrawal of the designation took place, may descend upon the local authority and say, "I want you to restore these premises to the condition

in which they were before you altered them." It may be physically impracticable to do so; the state of the building may render it impossible. Nevertheless the occupier, however late his claim, seems to have a legal right. That is one point which requires the serious consideration of the Lord Privy Seal.
Then, later in the Clause it is provided that if local authorities do not, within a reasonable time, comply with this requirement they shall pay compensation to a series of people. As far as I can see, there is no definition of "a reasonable time." Does it mean the time within which, if the resources and the workmen were available, the work could have been done? Suppose that a local authority had so many other things to do that it could not undertake this particular work. Suppose it had to do work for owners of factories and commercial buildings and mines—all that which the Lord Privy Seal earlier in the evening was light-heartedly proposing to place upon them. It might not be possible to undertake the work which an occupier required to be done. Nevertheless it might be said that they could have done it within what the court held to be a reasonable time, if they had set all the other work aside, and in that case they might be mulcted in damages. What is regarded as "a reasonable time" may depend on the circumstances of the case; it may depend largely on the frame of mind of the judge who hears the case. This is a loose phrase which almost invites litigation and will mean considerable trouble for both occupiers and local authorities. Finally, there is the provision that where there is more than one interest in the property the local authority
shall pay to every person having any estate or interest in the premises, building or land in or on which the works were executed, a sum equal to the depreciation in the value of the estate or interest of that person owing to the execution therein of the works.
First, the local authority must come to a conclusion as to what compensation is payable to meet the damage to the property as a whole. That, in itself, in some cases, will be a task of considerable difficulty. Then it has to decide what proportion of that sum is properly payable in respect of each interest in the premises, according to the extent of damage to each interest. It may not be a mere question of proportions and fractions but a question of deciding that one kind of


interest has not been damaged at all and that another interest has been damaged to a greater or lesser degree. There may be half a dozen degrees of interest or absence of interest. The question may be subject to the most difficult considerations. It will be possible for the parties to get round a table and to say to each other, "We had better do a deal." No doubt that will often happen, but if certain owners care to prove awkward, there may be a lot of litigation which will cost more money than the damage to the premises. In the circumstances I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine this Sub-section as a whole, and see whether it cannot be tidied up and made workable, not in the courts but administratively by the local authorities. It is better that these things should be settled as matters of administration than as subjects of legal argument. Those are points for consideration and I suggest that up to now sufficient attention has not been given to making this a workable provision.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: With regard to the various persons who have interests in a property, surely it ought not to be the business of the local authority to find out the share to which each of them is entitled. A composite claim ought to be presented to the local authority and if the local authority are liable—as I understand they are under the Clause as drafted—to pay any sum in respect of depreciation it ought not to rest with them to divide up the money in the right way. They have not got the terms and conditions of the various lettings and sub-lettings which would enable them to make such a division.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Foot: It seems that local authorities will be put in an exceedingly difficult position if they have to assess the various interests and decide how much each is to receive. I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that the Clause should be drafted in this way. In the first place, the right of asking for compensation should rest with the occupier. If the occupier exercises his right and any proceedings are taken in order to assess the value of the compensation, the other persons interested should be entitled to join with the occupier in those proceedings and have their shares assessed by whatever

tribunal decides the matter. If the occupier does not choose to exercise his right, then the other persons—owners, reversioners or mortgagees—should be entitled to step in. In any case I suggest that the local authority should be liable only to make one payment of one lump sum, leaving it to whatever tribunal deals with the matter to allot the respective shares of the various parties concerned. I do not always agree with certain hon. Members above the Gangway on periods of limitation, and it may be that in a few days we shall be discussing that subject on the Limitations Bill. But I am sure it will be agreed that in all these matters there should be some finality, some period of time at the end of which the local authority could say that it had discharged all its obligations and could not be faced with further litigation. Whether it is a period of six years or one of 10 years, there should be a definite period. There is no reason why there should not be a definite period if we give this right of action to all the parties interested, at once, instead of leaving it merely in the hands of the occupier for the time being.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: There is one statement of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) with which I disagree, namely, that the initiative should be left to the occupier. In the good old Victorian days when we had leases of seven years, 14 years, 21 years, and even longer, it might safely have been left to the occupier to start proceedings, but in these days when leases are becoming shorter and tenancies are becoming shorter, it should not be left to the occupier to start proceedings, if proceedings are to be started. I suggest that the initiative should come from the owner, for this reason, that particularly in London, where a leasehold system predominates to a large extent, the leaseholder is under an onerous burden to the freeholder at the expiration of his lease, and, therefore, an occupier for a short tenancy of three or five years may think that it does not matter to him, as he has only a few months to go to the end of his tenancy. He might not be a man of substance, and he might think, "What does it matter to me whether these premises are put into their original state or not?" I suggest, however, that it does matter very substantially to the owner of the property, particularly if he is a leaseholder holding on strict repairing


covenants to his freeholder. Therefore, I think that his interest is even greater than that of the occupier. Although I agree in the main with the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, I do not agree with him that the initiative should come from the occupier, and I suggest that it should come from the owner.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will give us a promise that this Clause will be reviewed. There are three things that occur to me to be necessary. One is that some time limit must be placed in the Clause, because it is ridiculous that there should be no such limit. Secondly, I think the occupier ought to be in some way defined. I think it ought to be the occupier at the time when the premises are designated or someone who is occupying the premises within some specified term, otherwise, as has been said by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, it may go for 100 years. The other thing that strikes me in connection with the Clause as needing some revision is the question of the dividing-up of the compensation. There ought to be some provision, either for an arbitrator, in the event of a dispute between the local authority and the occupier, the owner, and the remainder of those who have an interest, or there ought to be somebody specially appointed to assess the claims of each of them and apportion whatever damage may be found to be necessary in consultation between the different interests who have a claim. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal might be able to put down Amendments to meet the case.

9.49 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: There is one general reflection which the discussion on this Clause suggests to my mind, and that is that the complications of modern life are very great, and it is extremely difficult to meet, in a Clause of this kind, every contingency that may arise. I have already indicated that I shall be prepared to have the discussions that have taken place looked at carefully, with a view to seeing, between now and the Report stage, what Amendment, if any, is required to make this Clause more workable and more equitable in its operation. There is, however, one point raised by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh

(Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and referred to by the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee), which I think I can dispose of at once. Clause 59 provides for the determination of the sort of question which may arise in regard to compensation under Clause 6(3) by an official arbitrator, and Sub-section (3) of Clause 59 provides a machinery by which the claims of the various people having interests in any premises affected may be dealt with. That matter, I think, is fully covered by the provisions of Clause 59. There is, however, quite a number of points that have been raised in the discussion, and I think the only possible course is to look at the matter again, as I shall be perfectly prepared to do, between now and Report.

CLAUSE 7.—(Underground shelters.)

9.51 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That consideration of the Clause be postponed."
I can explain in a very few words my reason for making this proposal. Clause 7 was framed for the purpose of providing for the particular cases in which it might be desired to construct some underground structure on the site of a park, pleasure ground, or open space without interfering with the surface to any greater extent than might be necessary for the purpose of providing entrances, shafts, and necessary works of ventilation, drainage, and so on. In discussions that have taken place with the representatives of local authorities since the Bill was introduced, a desire has been expressed that the Government should, if possible, frame a Clause corresponding in its scope to Clause 7, but designed to deal with cases where above-ground shelters involving the use of the surface of parks, open spaces, and so on as contemplated in this Clause, could be facilitated. A promise was given that the matter should have consideration and that, if a suitable Clause could be devised, it would be put down for consideration in Committee. It seemed to the Government that it would be highly inconvenient if the discussions upon Clause 7, dealing with underground shelters, and the new Clause, dealing with above-ground shelters, were widely


separated in time. The obviously convenient course would be to take the two things together, or as nearly together as possible. For that reason, I move the postponement of the Clause.

9.53 p m.

Mr. H. Morrison: We on this side concur in the postponement of the consideration of this Clause, but I think I ought to warn the right hon. Gentleman, without going too far into the merits either of this Clause or of the Clause that he will substitute, that I am not at all sure that we are going to be happy about the business at the end of the day. We understand from the right hon. Gentleman— indeed, we know—that this Clause contemplates a strictly limited operation to underground shelters on open spaces of one type or another, and heaven knows that was a narrow enough conception of this class of shelter, but even now he is proposing to widen it only to the extent of permitting above-ground shelters to be constructed in certain cases. There is still the whole question of deeper and more adequate shelters underground, which will apparently be left out of this Clause and which would require still wider powers. I am moving along in a state of apprehension that I shall be in controversy with the Chair if I go any further, and I will not go much further. I only wish to say that, while we concur in the postponement of the consideration of this Clause and agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it will be the most business-like thing to do, he must expect, when we come to the Clause that if that is the only change he is to make, considerable debate and argument on the wider issues of shelter policy which, in our judgment, ought to be taken.

9.56 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on postponing the Clause, for it shows wisdom in anticipating difficulties and wishing to meet the criticisms of local authorities. A great part of the success of this Bill depends on the good will and co-operation of all local authorities. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the interesting and constructive discussion which we had earlier to-day on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). Certain good points were made which he might bear in mind when reconstructing the Clause.
I hope that he will not take too narrow a view of the scope of the reconstruction, but that he will try to get a Clause which has the support of Members in all sections of the House and will meet the different points of view as to the way of dealing with this difficult problem.

Sir J. Lamb: My right hon. Friend has intimated that he proposes to deal with shelters erected on the surface in addition to the underground shelters with which the Clause deals. There are on the Order Paper Amendments which would bring in other buildings than shelters, and I would like to know whether he will give consideration to that point at the same time.

9.58 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I would like to ask the Minister to make sure, in redrafting the Clause, to bring in those objects which are laid down as essential in the report on shelter policy. One of them is that in certain cases it is important that deep air-raid shelters should be provided at dangerous points, or, if the right hon. Gentleman prefers the phraseology, heavily fortified shelters. It does not matter whether they are below or above ground so long as they are heavily fortified.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with the Amendments on the Paper. I ought to have called to order the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) when he was dealing with the Amendments, but the Amendments are not before the Committee at the moment.

Dr. Guest: In view of the Minister's speech, in which he gave the lines on which he would redraft the Clause, I was suggesting that he should embody such phraseology as will allow the question of deep shelters to be dealt with if required.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the Minister give further attention to the position of the public utility undertakings? The Metropolitan Water Board, for instance, have many miles of water mains and they are concerned because there is no adequate protection for them in the Clause. I understand that the board have already made representations to the right hon. Gentleman's Department in connection with this matter, and I hope that he will realise the importance of greater protection for water mains

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said in support of the Motion that he hoped to have the Clause taken at the end of the Bill immediately in front of the new Clauses. I do not know when he anticipates that we shall next be discussing this Measure. Clearly it will not be this week. He knows from the conference of local authorities that, while they wanted to have this Clause amended, they regarded some decisions on the point which it raises, and which he has undertaken to take into consideration, as being very urgent. I hope we shall have some opportunity of getting at an early date decisions on the various points that have been raised, because the negotiations that will be necessary if the Clause in its widest possible form is carried will be considerable. It will be much to be regretted if they cannot be commenced at a comparatively early date. I hope that he will bear in mind the point that was stressed by every variety of local authority at the conference over which he presided, that these enlarged powers should be made as wide as possible, and also the several points that have been raised this evening, which, in view of your Ruling, I will not bring to his notice. I am sure the Minister has a good memory and does not need to be reminded of them, but I can assure him that the local authorities have good memories also and will expect to find every one of these matters dealt with when we consider the postponed Clause.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: This seems to be a most remarkable proposition for the Minister to make. It is another clear indication of the haphazard method in which this question has been approached. Right from the beginning those responsible have simply staggered from one expedient to another without any broad understanding of the problem that confronted them. It has been demonstrated beyond any question or doubt that this matter cannot be left in the hands of the present Minister or the Government if we are to get the shelter provision that is demanded. The fact that the Minister is forced at this stage to come forward and move that his own Clause be postponed until he gets another Clause prepared, should be sufficient to satisfy all Members that, if we are to get the necessary provision for the safety of the people, we must have, not

a change of Clause, but a change of Government.

Mr. Kirby: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the proposed new Clause will deal with the Liverpool proposal for the partial covering in of certain classes of narrow streets?

10.4 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not want hon. Members to be under any misapprehension. I explained that this Clause deals with the provision of shelters, which will necessarily be underground shelters that can be brought into existence without destroying the surface of the site. I am not suggesting that the Government are going to amend the Clause. What I have said is that the Government, as the result of discussions with local authorities, have undertaken to consider supplementing the Clause by another which would give, as far as practicable, corresponding power in regard to the provision of shelters which could only be constructed, whether they were deep or not deep shelters, by interfering with the surface of the sites. That is the whole point. I suggested as a reason for postponement that it would be desirable to discuss this Clause and the new Clause together. As regards the new Clause, I think the Committee should realise that very difficult questions do arise if you are proposing, as was suggested at the conference with the local authorities, to take squares, pleasure grounds, parks and so on, and so deal with them for the purpose of air raid shelters as to destroy their amenity value.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is discussing the new Clause and to do that is out of order.

Sir J. Anderson: I am very sorry; I am afraid I have gone rather far, but there was very little that I was going to add. I said what I did because I feared there might be some misapprehension in the minds of hon. Members which I was anxious to remove. Perhaps what I have said will suffice to remove that misapprehension.

Mr. Kirby: Can I have a reply to the question which I put?

Sir J. Anderson: I thought I had by implication, so far as it was open to me to do so, answered the question of the hon. Member.

10.7 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I want to deal exactly and only with the question of postponement. I wish to ask the Minister, who is taking this Clause back for reconsideration, to look into the whole matter, because unless he does think things over I am afraid his Clause is not going to work. The problem will be that in the distressed areas it will not be possible to work the Clause, if it is framed as this particular Clause is framed, because the provisions the Government have made are really not sufficient for areas with rates of 22s. to 25s. in the £.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is discussing a Clause which is not before the House.

Miss Wilkinson: It is far from my mind to discuss it at all. All I want to do is to get the Minister's Bill to work and to ask him to frame his Clause so that we in these areas, who are most anxious to do so, can work it. I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman, when he is reconsidering this matter, to give special consideration to making it a Clause that will deal with the problem of the overburdened and over-rated areas.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Application of Part 111.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I want to draw attention to the words in the Clause:
shall apply only in relation to areas specified in that behalf in an order made by the Minister.
It seems to me very unfortunate that the Government have felt it necessary to limit the operation of Part 111 in this way. I quite understand that as regards Clause 11 it may be felt to be an undue burden on industry to make them liable for undertaking those works over the whole country, but I should have thought the Government might at least have gone so far as to give the benefits of Clause 17, the Clause which covers the Exchequer grants, to any employers in any part of the country who were prepared to take these precautions. It is evident that it is

impossible for the Minister or anyone else to say beforehand with any high degree of accuracy what areas will suffer severely by bombing from the air in the event of war. One may say there is a higher degree of probability in some areas than others, but I do not think it can be put higher than that, and I submit, as I did on Second Reading, that anyone who in any part of the country erects an air-raid shelter is doing a public service and should be encouraged, even in those areas which at the moment the Minister does not consider to be highly vulnerable areas.
I think my argument is reinforced by the fact that the Government themselves have changed their view, and are, I believe, now contemplating changing their view again, as to which areas should be included in the list of highly vulnerable areas. Protests have been made by hon. Members representing areas which they feel to be a considerable degree vulnerable against those areas not being included. I think it was impossible to frame any exact Amendment which would deal with this problem, because of the well-known rule that it is not competent for a private Member to move an Amendment to a Bill which will increase a charge. If one were to seek, by means of a direct Amendment, to extend the operation of Clause 17 to areas to which the Government do not now propose to extend it, it would be out of order. Therefore, I felt the only course open to me was to raise the question on this Clause 9, where the limitation governs the whole of Part 11, and I wish to make a most earnest appeal to the Minister to consider whether he cannot do something to encourage owners of private dwelling-houses and owners of factories and workshops, in parts of the country which are not on the highly vulnerable list, to put up air-raid shelters. That would be to encourage them to do something which, in the special conditions, would be a public service.
I would remind hon. Members that the problem of evacuation affects this question particularly, because if evacuation is carried out on a big scale, as is proposed, from the big cities, areas which are to-day sparsely inhabited, will become very much more densely inhabited in time of war, and if there are air-raid shelters in the areas to which the people will go, they will be a factor making for greater safety. I hope that the Minister will be able to


go so far as to hold out some inducement and encouragement to people in the areas which are not upon the list of vulnerable areas to provide shelters of some kind.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: We ought to have further information from the right hon. Gentleman. In his Second Reading speech he said that he intended to provide a list of areas classed as vulnerable, neutral and safety, and most of us understood that the list was underging some kind of revision. A great deal of uncertainty is caused now, particularly in the London district, and I would ask the Minister when the order is to be made. In his Second Reading speech he gave an indication that he would have something more to say on this subject. I do not know whether this is the proper moment to raise it, but I would ask whether any revision is being made in regard to these vulnerable, neutral and safety areas.

10.17 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: It may be better if I intervene to deal with that one point immediately. There is a danger of misapprehension, because vulnerable and neutral areas, and so on, were spoken of in connection with evacuation; but we have also essentially vulnerable areas from the point of view of the provision of air-raid shelters. A vulnerable area might not be the same for the two purposes. Certainly, areas which are classed as neutral for the purposes of our evacuation schemes will, in quite a number of cases, be treated as vulnerable areas for the purpose of the provision of air-raid shelters. It is possible that one or two areas might be included in the reception areas for the purpose of evacuation schemes to which the obligation to provide air-raid shelters will apply. I say this by way of explanation. I would add that work has been going on continuously upon the schedule of vulnerable areas for this purpose of air-raid shelters and I expect that a list of vulnerable areas will be available this week.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could not the Minister think of some other name than "vulnerable area"? Some areas appear to be vulnerable for one purpose, and neutral or safety for other purposes.

Sir J. Anderson: I was using the words "vulnerable area" as a colloquial expression. In the Bill the term is:

specified … in an order made by the Minister,
and the word "vulnerable" is not included.

Mr. Morrison: Can the Minister give any indication when the order will be made in view of the fact that local authorities are being urged to get on with this work? The sooner they know where they stand the better.

Sir J. Anderson: Here we are dealing with the obligation of employers, occupiers of factories and owners of commercial premises, and not with the local authorities. For that purpose, areas are to be specified, and although the formal order contemplated by the Clause cannot be issued until the Bill is law, a list of the vulnerable or specified areas which it is proposed to schedule by an order will be available this week.

Mr. Foot: The undertaking given by the Minister does not entirely meet the objections to the Clause.

Sir J. Anderson: I was dealing with only one point by way of explanation.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Foot: It seems to me that the Minister's undertaking does not meet the objection to the Clause—

Sir J. Anderson: I was only making one point by way of explanation.

Mr. Foot: I appreciate that, but there seems to me to be considerable objection to the Clause. In this part of the Bill we should be deciding which parts of the country are to receive this form of protection, but the matter as it stands is not left to the House to decide at all; it is left entirely in the air, to be decided, after the Bill is passed, by an order made by the Minister. As the Bill stands, the House will have no control over that whatsoever. If it were put the other way round, and the Bill said that this obligation to provide air-raid shelters should apply in all parts of the country, but that the Minister might, where he though fit, make an exemption order, and that order should then be laid before the House, the House would have some control. But now it is provided that the obligation shall only apply where the Minister makes an order, that is to say, when the Bill has been passed. Then the matter will be entirely out of our hands and in the hands of the


Minister. I want to enter a protest, because that, in my view and in the view of my hon. Friends, is an entirely wrong way of dealing with the matter.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Mabane: I have considerable sympathy with the objection to this Clause, particularly as regards the proviso. It would help many of us to come to a decision if the Lord Privy Seal would indicate exactly what is intended by the proviso and on what principle he intends to proceed. The proviso says:
Provided that the Minister may by order declare that any specified factory premises shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as if they were included in such an area as aforesaid, and while such an order is in force they shall be so treated accordingly.
I can imagine in my own constituency, which for the purposes of evacuation is classed as a neutral area, but which has one or two factories of great national importance, it may be decided that those factories should be included within this Clause. If so, on what principle would it be decided that they are more likely to be hit in an air raid than any other building in that area? It would seem impossible to proceed on any reasonable principle in deciding that any particular factory in a particular area should come within the Clause, whereas other factories in the same area should not. It might be a fair presumption that factory A is a target that the enemy would desire to hit, but it is a totally unwarrantable assumption that it is the target which the enemy would actually hit. The enemy might as well hit factory B, which might not be included under the Clause. Equally, a factory in the open country, not within a densely populated area, might be an unlikely target for the enemy to aim at or hit. It would help many of us if the Lord Privy Seal would explain exactly what is intended by the proviso, which apparently allows him to say that one factory in an area in which there are many factories shall be regarded as coming within the Clause, whereas other factories in the area do not.

10.24 p.m.

Dr. Guest: The Minister has spoken of the different meanings of vulnerability as applied to evacuation and to the possibility of factories being in a dangerous position. This is a matter on which very clear thinking is required. If in this Bill

there is to be a new kind of English in which the word "vulnerable" is used in different senses as applied to different subjects, we shall get into very great confusion. [Interruption] It is suggested that we might have vulnerable Ministers, and I will endeavour to soft-pedal on that subject, because Ministers are very vulnerable in this matter. If we look at the matter simply, we can imagine an area which is a dangerous area because industrial establishments in it are likely to be attacked, and from which, consequently, a large number of people ought to be evacuated while for the remaining number deep air-raid shelter provision should be made. If the whole matter were thought of in that way, it would be much simpler. With regard to separate factories, I think I see the right hon. Gentleman's point. You might have a separate factory in a rural situation which would constitute a target, and, therefore, it might be advisable to construct deep shelters in that area for the workers in that factory. But to attempt to differentiate, to make the word "vulnerable" mean different things, is very dangerous.
I do not like to suggest that this Clause, too, should be taken back for consideration, but one rather wonders whether a number of Clauses should not be taken back for reconsideration. There is a considerable amount of confusion of thought. It does not seem to me that there need be, because you have several areas which are in themselves dangerous, like the London Docks area, and certain buildings, like munitions factories, which are in themselves dangerous. I should like to see the Minister boldly take powers in this Bill to evacuate people compulsorily from very dangerous places. If he did that, he would find that the whole question of vulnerability was very much simplified. Unless he does, I foresee a considerable degree of confusion, especially if he attempts to give different meanings to vulnerability, according to whether it is applied to people coming into towns or going out of towns.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that the Committee is now in a position to come to a decision. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said we were now deciding what places should be specified. In fact, we arc not deciding that issue here. We are deciding whether or not there shall be


any discrimination between one area and another in the country; whether there shall be a homogeneous and uniform application for the country or whether we shall apply protection to those areas which are more likely to be attacked.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has precisely inverted my argument. My whole complaint was that that was not being decided here, but that it was being decided elsewhere.

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Member's argument is all the better for inversion. The point we are deciding here is whether or not to leave out Clause 9, and the power given in the Clause is a power to distinguish between different areas in the country. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion was particularly concerned to note that the grants under Clause 17 might not be made available to all parts of the country if the discriminatory power remains. But the main purpose is not to give grants, but to impose a somewhat strained, and in some cases onerous, burden on certain factories in different parts of the country. The question we have to consider is whether it is right in principle that, in so far as is practicable and wise, these burdens should be restricted to places where protection is necessary, or applied indiscriminately over the whole country. I think it would be better to accept the principle that it should be restricted to places where protection is necessary.

Sir P. Harris: I do not know whether deliberately but certainly successfully, the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my hon. Friend.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was about to rise, and I gave way to him, not having finished my remarks.

Mr. Lewis: I rose to make this point. The commissioners set two proposals before us. One is to impose the obligation all over the country and give a grant in respect of it, and the other is to impose that obligation only on part of the country, and give a grant in respect of it. There is a third course. It is possible to impose the obligation on that part of the country where they think that the risk is greater and give a grant in respect of it,

and it would be possible in the rest of the country, to make it optional whether they gave the grant or not, but, by way of encouraging people to do it they would give the grant.

Mr. Morrison: There may be that possibility, but it will not be effected by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It must be obvious to the Committee that, however this matter may be decided as between area and area, it is clear that from the geographical situation, the density of population and from other causes, there are some areas in the country where the danger of air attack is more likely than in others, and equally, at the other end of the scale, there are areas so remote and rural that the possibility of attack, though it might be something in the nature of an accident, could not be considered as nearly so commonplace. I submit to the Committee that, by accepting Clause 9, they are accepting the principle that there should be discrimination in this matter, which will enable the action of the Government to conform to the facts as they are in the country, and not accept the suggestion that there should be the same treatment for the country no matter what is the position of events.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) asked me questions about the proviso to Clause 9, and what sort of criteria or principles would be applied by my right hon. Friend to distinguish those particular establishments outside the specified area which should be, by name, included for the purposes of these obligations and grants. Among such considerations are the particular size, shape and recognisable quality of any particular establishment. There is the importance from the national point of view of the industry carried on therein, and the likelihood of it being made a special object of attack. With regard to the larger question he raised about his own constituency, it would be a matter for consideration whether the density of establishments of that important character and their nearness to each other were such as to make the whole area surrounding it specified for the full power and protection of grant given by this part of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) was angry with my right hon. Friend for using the word "vulnerable."

Dr. Guest: Not angry, but pained.

Mr. Morrison: More in sorrow than anger, and he seemed to think that there is some confusion in the Bill in the use of the word "vulnerable." Actually in this Clause we talk about specified areas which is not the same thing at all. It is wise of us to concentrate our initial effort—a very considerable effort in many instances—first of all, on those areas which seem, as far as human foresight can judge, to be those most immediately threatened, whereas it is most important that vital industry shall be carried on and that we should adopt the principle of discrimination in different areas which is enshrined in this Clause.

10.35 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I am afraid that neither in his main argument nor in his peroration has the right hon. Gentleman convinced me. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has not been met. We have a great opinion of the Lord Privy Seal's impartiality and capacity, but we think that it is too great a power to vest in him to decide which areas should or should not be entitled to grant. There arc areas outside the apparent immediate danger zone where factories are situated which would be a temptation for enemy aeroplanes to attack. My hon. Friend rightly suggested that the districts to be included or, alternatively, to be excluded from the right to grant should be in the Schedule to the Bill. That is in accordance with the custom and traditions of the House. We do not like the idea of giving these great powers even at a time of great danger to any Minister, however capable he may be, and however anxious he may be to render impartial service to the country. I suggest that the places which are to be regarded as areas where factories are entitled to financial assistance, should be included in the Bill.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am surprised that the whole Committee has not been aroused against this Clause. It is clear that large numbers of our industrial population may be unprotected from air raids in the case of war. That is a very monstrous state of affairs. We know quite well that the Lord Privy Seal treats this matter in rather an airy way. On the Second Reading of the Bill he was frank enough to state that considerable numbers of people will in the case of war

have to make the best of it. He implied that unless certain workers were engaged in work of particular national importance they would have to look after themselves. We have an illustration in this Clause that the Government are coolly suggesting that the compulsory powers for the provision of shelters in regard to certain factories and buildings should not apply to the whole country. We are to be left to the definition of the Lord Privy Seal as to what is a vulnerable area. We are told that the words "vulnerable area" are not necessarily mentioned, but that is really what is meant.
On the North-East coast I take it, that because certain firms are engaged in shipbuilding and not in the production of armaments, they may receive no protection at the hands of the Government. That is to be an outrageous thing, and I will be no party to it. Surely, arrangements could be made under which the provisions of Clause9 could apply to the whole country, with certain reservations to be submitted to the House. We are the custodians of our constituents. On the North-East coast the meetings I have attended have emphasised the necessity of those areas, which may not be designated by the Lord Privy Seal as being worthy of attention, having the protection which this Clause should give to them. If you expect the industrial population to play their part in the matter of air-raid precautions and other ways in the event of hostilities, they are entitled to feel that they have a reasonable change of coming through the war. They have not that chance of this Clause be passed—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting near to a Second Reading speech on the Question of the Clause standing part.

Mr. Adams: I think the Clause is entitled to a Second and a Third Reading speech. If it goes through as it is, it will meet with deep resentment from the industrial population of this country, who may be left entirely unprotected under the Measure.

CLAUSE 10.—(Code for occupiers of factories, etc.)

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, leave out from "Act," to the end of the Sub-section.


This Amendment has been put down in order to draw an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the code. In Sub-section (1) are the words:
and he may from time to time by order revise any such code by revoking, varying or adding to its provisions.
I understand that what is worrying a great many occupiers of factories at the present time is how long, once the code has been issued, it will be before the conditions are altered. If they are altered once the work has been undertaken, it is not difficult to imagine that there will be added expense to the occupiers of factories. I desire to get an assurance that once the code has been issued it will not be unnecessarily altered, and that occupiers or owners will not be forced into additional expenditure unless it is absolutely essential.

10.44 P.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I should like to have given the assurance asked for by the hon. and learned Member, but I am bound to make this point, that the whole science of Civil Defence is in an experimental and developing stage. We are a long way from finality in regard to matters of protection. The technical aspects of protection are the subject of continuous study, and while I do not for a moment contemplate that the obligation of employers in the code, which we are about to issue, will be the subject of continuous change, I do not think it would be right to exclude the possibility that, with further knowledge and experience, it might be found desirable to make amendments or additions to the code. For example, an amendment to the code might take the form of suggesting a further alternative method of providing shelter. Such an amendment, surely, ought to be provided for. From the practical point of view, obviously we must try to avoid, by amendments of the code, placing fresh obligations upon employers who have already done all that could reasonably be expected of them in carrying out the requirements of the code as originally issued. Subject to that, I do say that it is necessary in this Clause to contemplate the possibility of additions to the code as originally issued.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Dodd: I hardly think the statement of the Lord Privy Seal has gone sufficiently far. What we have in mind in

the Amendment is that the draft code which is to be issued should be capable of being amended from time to time. The code has been drawn up by a very skilled body of experts, and I presume that the first operations will be based on it. To a very great extent, employers are in the hands of the factory inspectors, who work very much by rule of thumb. It is possible that a factory inspector in one district might put an entirely different interpretation upon particular articles of the code from that which another inspector in another area might put upon them. The net result of this would be confusion between one district and another. In the case of a concern employing 4,000 or 5,000 operatives, if we assume a figure, of £4 per operative—which is the amount mentioned in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum—there would be a total preliminary expense of £20,000. As there would be a grant of only about 25 per cent., a very large burden would be put on the people concerned. If a factory inspector said to that concern that the code had been altered, and that they would have to scrap all the work they had done, or extend it, or make alterations, they might be involved in an additional expenditure of many thousand pounds. Therefore, the point is a very important one. I feel sure that if my right hon. Friend can give the Committee some further assurance, hon. Members will be grateful.

Mr. Fleming: In view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, at the end, to add:
(3) In the case of air-raid shelters, the construction of which was commenced before the issue of the code, the Minister shall accept them as being within the terms of the code provided the Minister is satisfied that they give a reasonable degree of protection, notwithstanding that they may not in all particulars comply with the requirements of the code
This Amendment deals with the case of air-raid shelters which have been, or will have been, constructed by employers before the passing of this Bill. As hon. Members will remember, not only my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but more especially his predecessor, the Home Secretary and even his predecessor,


the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, on many occasions made strong appeals to industrialists throughout the country, telling them quite clearly that the Government, relied upon them to provide shelters for their workpeople. I am glad to say that many of them in all parts of the country—although, perhaps, not as many as we should have liked—responded to the appeals that were made to them by the successive Ministers responsible for air-raid precautions and did not wait for the Government to take the compulsory powers which they are now doing under this Bill.
Again, I think hon. Members will re-collect that many of us in all parts of the House have, for two years or more, urged the Government to issue detailed and specific advice upon the structural precautions which it was desirable that factory owners should take to protect their workpeople. It is true that after a very long delay some, I will not say inadequate, but insufficient, leaflets were issued. But it was only this afternoon— and I have not had time to look at it yet—that the first complete code of advice to factory owners has been published. Therefore, it will not be surprising if quite a considerable proportion of the shelters which have been constructed already in response to the Government's appeal by industrialists do not comply exactly with the provisions laid down in the code issued this afternoon. I am sure it is not my right hon. Friend's wish that those who have responded so promptly to the Government's appeal, and who have shown in a marked degree their sense of responsibility, should in any way suffer by the public spirit which they have displayed.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I think there are arguments why something in the nature of this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. Quite apart from the shelters which have already been constructed, there are shelters which could be created forthwith without waiting for the completion of the code or the passing of the Bill. I suggest that for other reasons it would be good social policy if the Lord Privy Seal could state publicly now that anything that was created in accordance with his requirements, and has been passed by his officers already, should rank for grant at a later stage. I put it

to the Lord Privy Seal that unless the Government are very careful they will create a situation in which there will be thousands of proprietors of commercial buildings rushing on the market, demanding materials, cement, skilled plumbers, and so on, and, what is worse, making an immediate call on a very limited labour supply, causing grave shortages in materials and labour, and they will jump the costs of these alterations in commercial buildings twofold, threefold and probably fourfold.
What is still worse, there will be diverted from our present housing schemes builders, labourers, employers, and plant, and a stoppage in housing schemes all over the country will be caused. One further effect will be that the cost of these alterations, the basements and so on, will be such that any number of employers, even with the Government grant, will be financially unable to face it. They might be able to undertake the work at present prices, but they will not be able to do it if prices double or quadruple. I submit it would not only be good social policy, but also in some respects an absolute necessity, for the success of this Measure to intimate now that whatever work is proceeding" under Part 111 to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman's officers will rank for grants at a later stage when these grants are availablt.

10.55 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I am in a position to give the assurance that has been asked for. Where work has been done already under the advice issued by the Department, or where work is done in anticipation of the passing of this Bill, if the shelter provided comes substantially up to the standard contemplated by the code, that work will certainly rank for grant. I am inclined to think that the best way of meeting the substantial point involved in the Amendment would be by an Amendment to Clause 10(2) extending the definition of "shelter of an approved type" for this purpose, and I undertake that such an Amendment will be brought in at a later stage. In the meantime I give a definite assurance on this point.

Mr. Sandys: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, at the end, to add:
(4) Any such code issued by the Minister under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of 10 days during the Session of Parliament, and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period praying that the order may be annulled, it shall be void, but without prejudice to the making of a new order. In reckoning any such period of 10 days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than four days.
We all have the utmost confidence that my right hon. Friend will discharge the duties entrusted to him by the Bill to the satisfaction of the House and in the best interests of the country. Nevertheless, I think we must recognise that the effectiveness of that part of the Bill which deals with the provision of air-raid shelters is largely, if not wholly, conditioned by the nature of the codes which the Minister may from time to time issue. Therefore, I think my right hon. Friend will recognise that it is not unreasonable that the House should preserve some right to express its opinion upon the provisions of these codes which the Minister is entitled under the Bill to issue for the guidance of industrialists. We all know the intense interest which the House has taken in the nature of the shelters to be provided. Very important issues are involved. In the circumstances it would not really be reasonable for the House to give the Government a completely free hand to decide at any time what shall be the character of the shelters to be provided in factories and business premises. In moving this Amendment we do not wish in any way to delay the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. My right hon. Friend will observe that we have specified a very short time limit of only 10 days in order not to delay or obstruct the effective and swift carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. In these circumstances I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.

11.0 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I have no intention of seeking to resist what I understand to be the purpose of this Amendment. No doubt it is right that the House should retain ultimate control of what can be done under these provisions. I suggest, however, that the method adopted by the framer of this Amendment is probably

not that best adapted to the purpose. As the Committee knows, the code is to be issued in advance.

Mr. Sandys: In advance of what?

Sir J. Anderson: In advance of the passage of the Bill, and everyone hopes that action in conformity with the code will be taken without delay, but under this Clause the code has to be approved by order before it has legal effect, and I would like to suggest that the best way of preserving to the House the power of control which it may be thought the House should retain, would be by making the order of the Minister an order which has to be laid for an appropriate period. That would give the House the desired control and generally meet the purpose of the Amendment. I should be perfectly prepared at the proper time either to accept an Amendment for that purpose or, after consultation, to put an Amendment on the Paper.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am very glad to hear the line that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted this evening, because it is a distinct improvement upon the line that he adopted last Thursday, when this matter was raised at Question Time and when he told the House, in reply to a question, that inasmuch as he was discussing the matter with the local authorities and there was nothing of controversy in the code, the opinion of the House need not be sought. I think it is clear that, important as associations of local authorities are—and I should be the last person to attempt to deprecate their influence in any way—this House must retain the final word with regard to the suitability or otherwise of any code that is proposed. I am not so very much concerned about the exact method or machinery, nor do I desire to see anything incorporated in the Bill that would lead to unnecessary delay, but I am very glad indeed to find that the right hon. Gentleman now recognises that this House of Commons has the last word in these matters.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I hope that, while the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter, he will consider the question of the method. There are two methods by which we can control an order of this kind. There is the class of orders which can be laid on the Table and which may be challenged within a certain period of time,


and there is the other and rarer method by which the affirmative assent of the two Houses is necessary. This is a matter of very great importance. We are deciding by this code exactly what form of shelter and air-raid protection is to be provided for a very large number of persons, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this would be an appropriate case for the adoption of the second method, requiring that the orders should receive the assent of the two Houses.

11.5 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I agree with the desirability of some form of control, but I want to emphasise a point that has been made—and I think the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) made it by inference—that it is not only a question of control. There are a considerable number of Members on all sides of the Committee who have great experience of local government, and a considerable number who have some experience and knowledge of this new subject of Civil Defence. It will be a definite advantage from a practical point of view that the House should be consulted and should have the opportunity of making its own contribution in this way. That is not a question of control but of co-operation with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sandys: In view of the satisfactory assurances which my right hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: This Clause deals with the code of procedure to be followed by factory owners and occupiers. As far as one can see, the code which is in the Vote Office to-night is confined entirely to plans relating only to blast and splinter-proof shelters. Apparently there is to be no code for factory occupiers and owners for any other type of shelter. In view of the fact that there are a large number of people who are interested in the problem of what they are to provide in their factories, it would be an advantage if the Lord Privy Seal said at the earliest opportunity what procedure they will have to follow if they wish to adopt more adequate means of protection for

their workers than those provided for in the code now issued. If there is to be a question of payment of Government grant for other types of shelter than that indicated in the code, there ought to be the earliest publicity to the owners as to how they are to proceed in order to get approval and payment of the grant.

11.8 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: It is true that the code does not purport to do more than specify various types of shelter which could properly be described as splinter and blast-proof shelters. It is the deliberate intention of the Government that the legal obligation which under this Bill is to be placed upon owners and occupiers should be limited to the provision of such shelters. There is a Clause later in the Bill under which shelters going beyond what is specified in the code may be allowed to rank for grant, subject to the terms of regulations to be made with the consent of the Treasury. It is contemplated that in places where employers intend to provide more complete protection and to get a grant in respect of such shelters, they should make application beforehand. I do not say that the Department would not be prepared to give proper consideration to any case in which the employer might have gone ahead in anticipation of the enactment of provisions of this kind. If such an employer makes out a case and satisfies the Department that according to the standards laid down the case was one in which the provision of heavily protected shelter was reasonable, the application will not be turned down merely because it was not made before the work was taken in hand. That, I think, answers the question of the right hon. Gentleman. It does remain a fact that the policy of the Government is to secure as rapidly as possible in vulnerable areas the provision of this type of protection for the workers and the general public on the greatest possible scale.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman is a very considerable declaration of policy and indicates a very considerable shifting of opinion in the Government in the past three or four years. I understand that now the Government regards shelters as being adequate for the purpose if they afford protection from splinters and blast. Have they, therefore, reached the con-


clusion that there is adequate protection from gas in the case of the workers through the provision of gas respirators, and that it is not necessary to make shelters gas proof? In the early days of this Parliament, before we were favoured with the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, the main efforts of the Government, if such feeble efforts as they then put forth could be termed main efforts, were directed towards scaring the public about gas. Now, I gather, that has vanished completely from their plans. I recollect that in those days I suggested that they were considerably over-emphasising that side of the problem.
Further, do they not regard protection from incendiary bombs as being an essential part of the protection? That was a second line they took up then. Are we to understand that they have received evidence as a result of recent hostilities in other countries that gas and incendiary bombs are less to be feared and less likely to affect these workers than high explosives? The right hon. Gentleman must realise that what he has said is a very important declaration of the views of the Government, and I think we are entitled to know whether they have now abandoned the views which were formerly expressed with great vehemence from that Box.

11.13 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The Government have not abandoned their policy of encouraging the provision of protection against gas or against incendiary bombs. As regards gas, I have myself expressed the view on behalf of the Government that the extent of the provision already made had probably rendered the risk of gas attack less likely than it would have been if such provision had not been made. I did not say "risk of damage"; I said "risk of attack"—a perfectly valid point. As regards incendiary bombs, what we are dealing with in this Part of the Bill is the protection of workers, and it has never, I think, been suggested that incendiary bombs presented very grave risks as far as life and limb are concerned. The question of incendiary bombs is of very great importance as regards the destruction of property, but here we are dealing with structural protection, involving capital expenditure, designed to give protection to workers. That is why there is insistence here on protection against injury from high explosive bombs. The

policy of making reasonable provision against gas attacks and against incendiary bombs stands.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not think it is possible to allow the Minister to get away with such a statement, that incendiary bombs are not a menace to life and limb. As a matter of fact, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out earlier, gas and incendiary bombs were the whole stock-in-trade of the Minister. It was from this side that we had to insist upon protection against high explosive bombs, but nevertheless we take note of the fact that incendiary bombs, if they are dropped on a factory, can become a very great menace to life and limb; but it all depends upon the precautions that have been taken by the occupiers and the workers in the factory against the danger of fire that arises from incendiary bombs. It is obvious that in the minds of the Minister and of those with whom he is associated there is no wide conception of the problem of the safety of the workers and of the people generally. That is made clear by the so-called explanations that we have been given and that do not meet the case. We are told that some measures have been taken arising out of the menace of gas, and that if they had not been taken the situation would be the same as it was before the measures were taken. When we hear such an argument as that it makes one realise that there is no conception on the part of the Government, or even on the part of the Minister, of the terrible responsibilities which rest upon them in connection with this question.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Captain Margesson]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.